Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Julia Goral

Hertz Europe Service Centre

Representatives

Self-represented

Einde O'Donnell LK Shields

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00043715-001

22/04/2021

The complainant outlines that her employment ended by way of redundancy, and this is disputed by the respondent. The complainant’s full-time wage was in the region of €40,000 and any lump sum award capped at €600 per week.

The complainant outlined that she was made redundant in April 2020 but did not receive the redundancy payment. She outlined that the offer of an alternative role made by the respondent was not suitable to her career plans. She did not accept this offer.

The complainant outlined that she started in the role on the 26th September 2016, and it ended on the 24th April 2020. She was first an accounts payable administrator, then an accounts payable specialist and lastly, a project leader in the same department. She was then an accounts payable business analyst. She was tasked with fixing processes and also worked on particular projects. Her role was to fix IT issues and this was a high level role.

The complainant said that the offer was for the role of procurement operations analyst and this was a completely different role. This was working with different stakeholders on completely different tasks. She had always worked in the accounts payable area and had great deal of specialisation in this area. She was not interested in the proposed role. She had put a lot of work into her specialisation in accounts payable and would have to do it all again in procurement.

The complainant now worked in accounts payable, and this showed that she wanted to stay in this role. She had never worked in a procurement role. She believed that the accounts payable roles were to relocate to the US and that procurement in the Dublin office was to increase. Some of her colleagues in accounts payable were offered procurement roles while others were made redundant.

In reply to the respondent, the complainant said that she did not accept the role offered to her as it involved cleaning up the PO process. It was not clear what the role would look like and it would involve creating new processes. She said that when she was project leader, she had worked very hard and was exhausted. She had asked to reduce her hours to part-time hours. She did not want to go through this again with another project. She had done so much to build up her position and would have to start this again. She knew that it would be busy and did not want to work so hard again.

The complainant said that she was not offered an extension to her current role even though others were retained because of the pandemic. She agreed that she was a good fit as she had worked hard in the role, but the role was not a good fit for her. She said that the part-time offer was in procurement and on a trial basis. She had not accepted this.

The respondent outlined that the accounts payable department moved to the US and the procurement function was consolidated in Dublin. This department expanded as it would service the global business. Accounts payable and procurement are two sides of the same coin. Accounts payable is about on-boarding and procurement is getting money from the on-boarded clients.

The consolidation placed eight roles at risk and there was a consultation process with all staff including the complainant. The five others who were offered roles accepted them and remain in employment.

The complainant’s terms and conditions were to stay the same. There was overlap between the two roles and they were at either end of the same process.

There were five meetings with the complainant, and they agreed to her request for a part-time role. The complainant then worked in the part-time role.

The place of work was to remain the same. It was unreasonable for the complainant to decline the role as this was a bona fide role and there was significant cross-over of the skills required for the role. There was also an overlap in duties.

There has been significant restructuring caused by the pandemic, but the procurement team has not been affected.

The HR Business Partner outlined that a decision was made to consolidate all accounts payable functions in the US and for procurement to be done in Dublin. Four accounts payable staff were offered alternative roles and two others were also found roles. She outlined that the accounts payable and procurement functions are part of ‘procure to pay’ which deals with all vendors. The role of accounts payable was to get the right terms and money. There was a lot of interaction with procurement.

The respondent held five meetings with the complainant and the repercussions were clear. The alternative role offered to the complainant was still in existence. It was as a business analyst, working with data sets and processes in procurement. There might have been more opportunities for promotion to management in procurement.

The complainant asked for part-time working and this was separate to the discussions about her role. They agreed to this on a trial basis for six months.

In further reply to the complainant, the respondent stated that there had been a delay in moving the four roles across because of the pandemic. This occurred in April or May and the two others were delayed because of a US bankruptcy. They stayed in the roles, with one leaving in 2020 and another in 2021.

The respondent relied on the Labour Court authority of Celina Byrne – RPD1811, where the claimant had been a sales assistant in the Merrion Centre and was offered two positions in town. The claimant had previously worked in a standalone role and was to move to a concession desk. The claimant thought that the role had no future. It was held that there was no disadvantage with the commute and turning down the offer was unreasonable.

The respondent submitted that the offer made to the complainant was reasonable. The salary and benefits were the same. There were the same colleagues and significant overlap in the roles. The offered role was more advantageous as it was in a larger team with more opportunity for progression. It was not the case that there was no future in the role. The procurement roles continued despite the pandemic, so the role was clearly had a future. The complainant’s refusal was unreasonable, and the comparators are still in place. The offer of the part-time role showed the respondent’s reasonableness

This is a complaint pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act. The complainant worked in the accounts payable department, and this moved from Dublin to another location. The complainant outlined that she was offered a completely different role in procurement, with different processes and stakeholders. The respondent outlined that the alternative role was reasonable and meant that the complainant could not assert that she had been made redundant.

Section 15 (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act provides:

(2) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if —

(a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,

(d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract, and

(e) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

Most of the case law interpreting section 15(2) consider situations where the offer of alternative employment is at a different location (see Heavey v Casey Doors RP 1040/2013) or a diminution in status albeit on the same level of pay (Cosy Tots v Boggans RPD 10/2021). The suitability of the alternative employment is generally viewed objectively, while the reasonableness of the employee’s decision to decline is subjective and depends on factors personal to them.

The offer of the alternative role in procurement, based at the same location and with the same terms and conditions was clearly a suitable offer for this employee. The question is whether it was unreasonable for the complainant to turn it down. The complainant’s reasoning was that she had accomplished a huge amount of work in accounts payable, and would have to do the same again in procurement. At this time, the complainant was negotiating part-time hours. The most striking part of the complainant’s evidence was her statement that she was a good fit for the respondent because she worked hard, but the new role would not be a good fit for her.

This is a factor personal to the complainant, and viewed from her point of view, it was reasonable for her to turn down the new role in procurement. Given that the complainant did not unreasonably refuse the offer of alternative employment, section 15(2) does not apply, and the complainant is, therefore, entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment.

The following criteria apply:

Commencement date of employment: 26th September 2016

Gross weekly wage: €600

End date of employment: 24th April 2020

CA-00043715-001

I decide that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act, in accordance with the following criteria:

Employment start date: 26th September 2016

Employment end date: 24th April 2020

Gross weekly remuneration: €600 (as per the cap)

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Redundancy Payments Act / section 15(2) / whether employee unreasonable