Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Louise  Sheeran

Aurivo

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Fidelma Carron SIPTU, Workers Rights Centre,

Terry MacNamara IBEC

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-00059140-001

29/09/2023

This complaint is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Aurivo not to pay redundancy pay to her following the termination of her contract of employment as a finance graduate.

Louise Sheeran was employed by the Aurivo from 10.09.2019 to 31.03.23(the agreed dates) on a graduate training programme. Her rate of pay was €2100 per month.

Having clarified in January 2023 that there would be no permanent contract of employment or role offered at the end of March 2023, Ms Sheeran finished her employment on the date specified in the agreed contract.

In April 2023, she issued an RP 77 on the basis that her role was not replaced and therefore she was entitled to statutory redundancy pay. The Respondent rejected the application in an email dated 07.06.23.

To her knowledge at the time of making the complaint to the WRC and up to the date of the hearing in January 2024, it was the Complainants understanding that her position was not replaced, hence her belief that she was entitled to statutory redundancy and the complaint to the WRC.

The essential facts submitted by the Complainant were not disputed. Where the Respondent disagrees is that the role or position held by the Complainant was made redundant. An interview was held for a replacement for the graduate position while the Compliant was still in the employment. Indeed, it was contended that the Complainant was part of the interview process (a point which she did not accept as having any knowledge at the time that this was the case). The person to whom the position was offered in 2023 and who was due to commence in September 2023 declined the post, opting for another career. Another person offered the post is due to commence in January 2024. Normally trainee graduates commence employment in or around September.

ADJ 16408 and EAT RP1378/2009 were cited as precedents.

I am satisfied that the Complainant genuinely believed that her post was left vacant after her contract expired and she left the business. However, I am also satisfied that these positions are not the usual employment relationships which govern the tenure of posts, roles and vacancies. They are by their very nature temporary relationships which are intended to work to the benefit of both parties. The Complainants temporary contract expired and she left the business. The Respondent was always attempting to fill the vacant position albeit it has taken some time to succeed in doing so. However, a great deal of time and trouble might have been saved if the Respondent had made the case regarding the filling of the vacant post in the letter of 7 June 2023 instead of the one containing the incorrect date of the contract relationship. Indeed, I further note the Respondent failed to complete the relevant statutory form.

ADJ 16408 and EAT RP1378/2009 are relevant to the circumstances of this case and I see no reason to depart from those precedents.

While the Complainant was dismissed, I am satisfied that dismissal occurred only due to the expiry of a fixed term contract and the overall conclusion is that the position held by the Complainant was not made redundant by the Respondent. The terms of Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended apply in this case insofar as the complaint as presented does not meet the criteria set out in Section 7 as follows:

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1967

REVISED

Updated to 19 April 2022

General right to redundancy payment.

7.—(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the businessfor the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.

The appeal must fail in the circumstances.

CA-00059140-001 The appeal by Louise Sheeran against the decision of Aurivo not to pay statutory redundancy pay is  not upheld.

Redundancy following expiry of a contract-graduate trainee programme