Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A worker

An Employer

Representatives

Victoria Stephens SIPTU

Helen McShane Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations  Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act  1968

CA-00064871

21/04/2022

The Complainant takes issue with the manner in which she was notified of her redundancy and the steps that were taken by the Respondent to avoid the redundancy situation. 

The Complainant takes issues with the way she was made redundant. She was put on lay-off during the pandemic and then, with little or no notice, was made redundant. Taking into account, that the Complainant worked in a DEIS school, which received funding from the State, none of that funding was made available to help the after-school club remain open.  The school website doesn’t even state that the after-school club is closed. There is also talk that the club is going to be re-opened. The breakfast club was closed too but that has re-opened. There is a possibility that the after-school club might re-open. The Complainant hasn’t been approached in relation to that.

The funding from the State for the DEIS school could have been allocated by the Board of Management for the after school. It wasn’t.

There were options open to the Board of Management, but they decided to close it.

It is accepted that the Complainant received a letter dated the 07.01.2022 putting her on a “risk of redundancy “. It is also accepted that there was a meeting on the 13.01.2022. However, it wasn’t explained to the Complainant that the only funding available to the after-school club came from the parents and that the Board of Management could not, even if it wanted to, allocate any of the DEIS money to the after- school club.

The Complainant worked in an After-school club and she worked for about one hour a day. The club was financed by the €8.00 per week that the parents paid per child.  When covid-19 came, none of the children were attending the club so the parents were not paying the fees. The school could not afford to keep the club running with no funding. The three employees of the club received the pandemic payment up to the point that they became ineligible. The Complainant was invited to a meeting on 6th September 2021 to discuss the on going public health regulations and the current status.  On 22nd October the secretary to the Board of Management wrote to the Complainant stating that unfortunately the public health updates for the school communicated to the Board meant that the lay off period had to continue. The RP 9 was included. On 10th November a similar letter was sent to the Complainant. The next meeting the Complainant attended was to outline the current position of the after-school club. She was informed that her role was at risk of redundancy. She was informed that a formal redundancy process would commence. By letter dated the 07.01.2022 the Complainant was formally put on “risk of redundancy” and was invited to a meeting to discuss that risk of redundancy on the 13.01.2022. At the meeting on the 13th the Complainant was informed that the club was totally reliant on the parents paying the fees and as a result of the pandemic there was no money to continue the club. Advice was given in relation to the social fund if funds were not available to pay the redundancy. All of the employees’ concerns were voiced and addressed. Following that meeting the Board of Management decided that that they had no option but to close the after -school club.  

The meeting on the 7.02.2022 was nothing more than a clarification meeting.

The funding for the DEIS school is designated by statute for the school itself not the after-school club. It couldn’t be used for the after-school club.

The after-school club is closed and remains closed and there are no plans to re-open it.

Having considered the submissions from both the Complainant and the Respondent I remain unclear as to what the Complainant’s specific complaint is. It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted that the Complainant was informed of the situation at every step of the way. Furthermore, she was given an opportunity to voice her concerns and suggestions in relation to how the redundancy could be avoided. The employers handling of the situation, in very difficult circumstances, was impeccable.

In all of the circumstances I am not making a recommendation.

The complaint fails. I am not making any recommendation in the circumstances.