ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046375
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jackson Ford | Deci Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Self | Michael Watt |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00057226-001 | 20/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00057226-002 | 20/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act | CA-00057226-003 | 20/06/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00057226-004 | 20/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following 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.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation. All evidence in this case was taken under affirmation.
The complainant presented his own case, and the respondent was represented by Mr Michael Watt, Contracts Manager and Ms Britt Almfort, HR executive.
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from 08/08/2022 until 29/05/2023 when he was dismissed by reason of redundancy. The complainant believes that he was made redundant as a result of him highlighting health and safety matters and a number of other concerns to the respondent. The respondent denies these claims and submits that the complainant was made redundant and signed a severance agreement at that time. The complainant was paid an annual salary of €45,000 plus bonuses. These complaints were submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20/06/2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. He was employed as a Recruitment and Talent Lead with the respondent from 08/08/2022 until he was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 29/05/2023. The complainant believes that his redundancy arose after he raised a number of concerns about health and safety matters, GDPR issues and concerns about his own safety. These were not dealt with, and the complainant also submitted that he experienced discrimination and was left isolated in the office and was excluded from workplace events such as a leadership event. The complainant submits that his role was the only one that was made redundant. The process followed by the respondent was flawed and he highlighted this to the respondent who then proceed to change the process. The complainant gave evidence that he felt pressurised into signing a severance agreement. This pressure came about as the respondent knew he needed the money and he felt that if he did not sign it, he would not get paid. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent raised a preliminary point in relation to the complainant’s status to bring his complaints before the Workplace Relations Commission. When the complainant was advised that a decision was made to make him redundant, he was subsequently provided with a severance agreement and details of his final payments. He confirmed in an e mail dated 31/05/2023 that he accepted the redundancy/termination agreement and the amounts detailed. In signing that agreement, the complainant specifically waived his right to pursue any claim against the respondent under all “legislation relating to his employment and its termination”. The respondent also submits that the complainant provided no evidence that he was pressurised into signing the agreement and the amounts he was to be paid were contractually due to him under his contract of employment. He was not due any redundancy or any other payment and the respondent was bound to pay these monies irrespective of whether he signed the agreement or not. The complainant also took independent legal advice, and he confirmed his acceptance of the agreement after taking this advice. The respondent also disputes the complainant’s submission that when he signed the agreement, he specifically excluded the section which contained the waiver in relation to pursuing any claims. The complainant has not provided the respondent or the WRC with any evidence in relation to this. The complainant also made a number of allegations in relation to health and safety, discrimination and other matters. The complainant had an Employee Handbook which outlined the process for dealing with complaints of this nature. The complainant did not submit any such complaints. The respondent also submits that they are a multiracial company and have employees from many different nationalities. The complainant has not provided any proof that he was treated any differently to any other employee. The respondent also submits that the burden of proof in such matters lies with the complainant, and he has failed to discharge this burden. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the hearing the complainant confirmed that due to his employment history with the respondent he did not have the required service of two years in order to pursue a claim under the Redundancy Payment Act. The key issue to be decided in this case is the legal position in relation to the Severance Agreement dates 26/05/2023. One of the key elements in relation to a severance agreement is that the employee concerned must understand that the agreement brings their employment relationship with that particular employer to and end and without any recourse to the protection of various employment protection legislation. The employee must have had an opportunity to take legal or advice from a competent person. The complainant gave evidence at the hearing that he “took advice from a legal representative who was a specialist in workplace relations matters”. The complainant also confirmed his understanding that this severance agreement was a legally binding agreement. The respondent submitted that the recent case of Donal O’Donovan v Xerox IBS Limited, ADJ-00044485, provided a comprehensive overview of the legal position in relation severance agreements and its findings and conclusions were relevant to this case. It is clear that the agreement presented to the complainant intended to end the employment relationship and to provide for a “full and final discharge and satisfaction of all and any claims, rights of action, and demands that the Employee has or may have against the Company, its agents, officers and employers, arising out of his employment with the Company, or its termination whether such claims arise under contract, common law, tort or statute [….] or otherwise and all other legislation relating to employment and its termination”. The complainant, in addition to his own expertise in these matters, also had took the opportunity to consult with a competent legal practitioner. I have considered the evidence adduced at the hearing and the submissions from both the complainant and the respondent I have also considered the case law referred to by the respondent. I am absolutely satisfied that the complainant in this case had a detailed understanding of the meaning and constraints placed on him by accepting this agreement. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate these complaints. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons outlined above I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate these complaints. |
Dated: 09th November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Severance agreement. Jurisdiction. |