ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00029865

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  07/09/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015] following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint

This matter was heard by way remote hearing pursuant to the Civil law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

No objections were raised to the remote hearing.

Background

The complainant was employed by the respondent from the 15th February 2016 until the 15th June 2020 when she was made redundant.  The claimant was paid €2282 (€2045 net) per month working a 35-hour week. The complainant submits that she was Unfairly dismissed by reason of redundancy which is denied by the respondent 

Respondent’s positions.

The Respondent (NCP) communities’ partnership is a national umbrella network of migrant led groups in Ireland.  The membership comprises of community and voluntary groups from Asia, Middle East, Africa, European, and the Caribbean, South American and African backgrounds. Membership is drawn from refugees and asylum seekers individuals and groups, faith groups, 2nd and top country nationals, EU migrant networks, first generation, and new and settled migrant groups

The network was formed in 2003 by a group of community leaders who wish to represent and empower migrant communities and organisations in Ireland. Through member groups’ backgrounds varied widely, they share the common goal of striving to overcome the obstacles and difficulties that arose for people to building a new life in Ireland

NCP is an organisation led community members for community members and the issues that organisation is addressing are grounded in their lived experiences. The organisation enables migrant communities to engage with all aspects of Irish social, political and cultural life and an equal footing, thereby maximising the leadership capacity within the new communities.

NCP facilitates policy makers at local, national and EU levels together directly with the new communities through an organised cohesive structure of nationwide integration forms comprising more than 150 immunity groups.

NCP open this first office in Dublin in 2005 and established offices in Cork and Limerick in 2006. As of June 2020, the organisation offers services and support to migrants in two offices in Dublin city and NCP currently employs a total of 12 staff members.

The claimant commenced employment with NCP in February 2016 at the time of her redundancy was employed in a full-time role of Programme Co-Ordinator at the organisations Cork office.

Respondent submits to the genuine redundancy existed in this case, as a direct result of the closure of the Cork Office. Said closure were due to very serious health and safety concerns with the Cork premises. These serious concerns could not be overcome or remedied by the respondent. despite their best efforts. The details in relation to the said concerns, related circumstances and the narrative that led to the unfortunate redundancy’s situation is included later in the submission along with key supporting documentation.

The Respondent in early February 2020 arranged for an independent safety assessment of its Cork office. The assessment related to deteriorated state of the premises, in the context whereby the landlord was unsympathetic to the said concerns. These assessments were carried out by a competent and qualified health and safety professional.

In summary, the report found very serious health, safety and fire risks with the building that required immediate building repair intervention, particularly as related to the dangerous state of the building electrics, heating and plumbing.

Shortly after the ball building assessment on February 3rd, 2020 respondent received correspondence from the Health & Safety Authority (HSA) citing excessive mould, very cold with no central heating, constant bad order, very few electric sockets resulting the use of cable leads and associated trip hazards, exposed wires, leaks, and other safety issues. Respondent wrote to the HSA on the 9th March 2020 acknowledging receipt of the said correspondence and advised of actions currently under way.

The respondent sought quotations from builders and building renovators however the cost was prohibitive as the landlord was not prepared   to contribute to the works

The respondent was running at a deficit of 60k, and they did not have the funds to pay the high rent rates that were demanded from other parties.

Respondent met remotely with the complainant on the table to 20th and 27th April.

 It's also undisputed that the cost of getting the premises at 107 Shannon street to the required standard prohibitive which was beyond the affordability of respondent.

Complainant’s position

 The claimant accepted where they worked was not fit for purpose

However, it was submitted that the respondent did not make sufficient efforts to find an alternative location for the employee the claimant representative raised various other matters during the hearing, and it was submitted that this played a part in the claimant being made redundant

The claimant’s representative during cross examination raised various other matter with the respondent

The claimant representative suggested that that the employee could have worked remotely and that the respondent did not give that proposal due consideration

Findings

I find that there is no dispute between the parties that the condition the claimant was working in was not fit for purposes for a variety of reasons

I find that the respondent’s budget was extremely limited the chance of findings a suitable place for 500 per month was extremely remote

I find that the issues raised by the complainant in other matters were more appropriate to other legislation

In relation to remote working the respondent submitted that the files would have to be kept in an office for GDPR reasons and the risk of a file being lost could have major consequences for the respondent

I find that should the respondent secure a premise in the near future the complainant is made aware of it.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.

I have decided that a genuine redundancy situation existed and the claim for Unfair Dismissal fails.

Dated:   13th October 2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Jim O'Connell

Key Words: