ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029960
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Grainne Brady | Arden Broadband Limited - Arden Broadband |
Representatives | Owen McConnon North Connaught & Ulster CIS | Karen Talbot - Talbot Pierce |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040442-001 | 16/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00040442-002 | 16/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Thee complainant and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation. In addition, the respondent’s representative was present at some of the meetings referred to in the course of the hearing and gave her evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00040442-001 The complainant submitted that she was employed from February 2016 until she was made redundant in May 2020. She submitted that she received a notice of a possible redundancy on 5 May 2020 in which she was asked her observations. However, on 7 May she received her notice of redundancy and her employment was terminated with immediate effect. The complainant submitted that the respondent failed to act fairly and reasonably and that its decision was taken before she had a chance to comment. The complainant submitted that the respondent failed to consider it alternatives and that the scoring sheet it used in its redundancy matrix was day 7 May, the last day of her employment. CA-00040442-002 The complainant submitted that she did not waive her statutory right to minimum notice and should have been allowed to remain in work until the last date of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00040442-001 The respondent submitted that a fair and objective selection process took place. The respondent submitted that although the process was short is was objective. The respondent submitted that the complainant and the other junior administrative staff member were issued with a notification of possible redundancy letter of 5 May 2020 and were asked to provide their comments by the close of business on the following day. The complainant did not seek additional time or provide any comments although the other person under consideration did provide comments within the timeframe. The respondent submitted that as the two staff members had started work within one day of one another, last in first out would not be an appropriate method of selection for redundancy. The respondent submitted that it drew up an independent matrix of skills performance and attendance. The respondent submitted that the decision regarding redundancy was taken from this matrix and although it resulted in a close outcome – 130 vs 139, the result was abided by. The respondent submitted that there was a consultation process, options were considered, and the outcome was notified to those affected. The respondent also submitted that the possibility was discussed with staff before the Covid pandemic. The complainant was not required to work out her notice. The respondent submitted that although the redundancy process was conducted in a short timeframe, it was a fair and reasonable process. The respondent noted that as the complainant found another job immediately, she was not at a financial loss. CA-00040442-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid in lieu of notice as provided for in the legislation |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00040442-001 The complainant submitted that the process used for the selection for redundancy was not fair or reasonable. In response to this the respondent accepted that the timeframe was short but submitted that it had specifically chosen not to go with last in first out as it felt this would be unfair on the two employees concerned who started within one day of one another. The respondent accepted that neither candidate was aware of the matrix it used but that it was the fairest option in the circumstances. The respondent also submitted that this was not the first occasion that the issue of redundancy was mentioned to its staff members and although the complainant could not recall a specific occasion, she did not deny that the matters had been discussed previously. The respondent noted that following the return to the office after the first Covid lockdown it became apparent that they would have to act on the new business environment and cut cost immediately in its back-office function and try to improve sales. The respondent noted that it took on an experienced sales person shortly after letting the complaint go but that the option of moving the complainant into the role was not an option in the circumstances. The respondent also noted that it offered to pay for legal advice for the complainant following its decision to make her redundant. She did not avail of this offer. Having regard to all the written and oral submissions in relation to this complaint, I am satisfied that even though the process was conducted in a short time frame, the respondent did not act in an unfair or unreasonable manner in all the circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed. CA-00040442-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid in lieu of notice as provided for in the legislation. The complainant did not dispute the payment in lieu of notice, rather she submitted that she did not waive her statutory to work out her redundancy. Section 7 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 – 2020 state that: Right to waive notice. 7.— (1) Nothing in this Act shall operate to prevent an employee or an employer from waiving his right to notice on any occasion or from accepting payment in lieu of notice. (2) In any case where an employee accepts payment in lieu of notice, the date of termination of that person’s employment shall, for the purposes of the Act of 1967, be deemed to be the date on which notice, if given, would have expired. Having regard to this section of the legislation, and the written and oral submissions of the parties, I find that the Act was not contravened. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint 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.
CA-00040442-001 Having regard to all the written and oral submissions in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed, and I therefore dismiss this complaint. CA-00040442-002 Having regard to the written and oral submissions of both parties, my decision is that the Act was not contravened. |
Dated: 31st January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, complaint dismissed, minimum notice, not contravened. |