ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044911
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Wayne Baker | Tesco |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Mark Flynn SIPTU | Ciar Murtagh IBEC |
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-00055561-001 | 14/03/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
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. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that he should have been allowed to avail of a voluntary redundancy package that was offered to some of his colleagues in 2015. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant has not been dismissed from the company by reason of redundancy or for any other reason. By virtue of this, he cannot receive a redundancy payment and therefore this claim must fail. It was also submitted by the respondent that the complainant has No Locus Standi in relation the Complaint submitted under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. The Complainant could not take a claim under the Act within 104 weeks of dismissal as the Complainant was never dismissed nor was his employment terminated. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the outset, the representative for the complainant confirmed that the voluntary redundancy package at the centre of this complaint was offered in 2015. As pointed out by the respondent the complainant was not made redundant. Sections 41(6) & (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 lays down the time frame within which a complaint must be presented to the Director General. It states as follows: (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. … (8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause. The complainant taken in this case relates to the operation of a voluntary redundancy package which is manifestly outside of the time limits comprehended by the Workplace Relations Act. Accordingly, I find the appeal against the decision of the employer is out of time. |
Decision:
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.
Having regard to the circumstances of this complaint, my decision is to disallow the complainant’s appeal. |
Dated: 29th of July 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act – Voluntary Redundancy package from 2015 – outside of the timeframe comprehended by the Workplace Relations Act – disallow the complainant’s appeal |