Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gemma  Cuffe

Oxendales & Co Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

 Addeshaw Goddard (Ireland) LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00057543-001

05/07/2023

The Complainant was employed as a Financial Services Operations Manager from 11th July 2022 until 10th March 2023.

The Complainant was a manager for 12-14 agents on the financial services team. She reported directly to the Director of Financial Services Mr. Joe Boshell. She passed her probation and had monthly meetings with Mr. Boshell, no issue was ever raised with her performance.

On 10th March 2023 she was called to a meeting with the Director and the HR representative was present on Teams. She was not given any information about the meeting in advance, nor opportunity to be represented. She was informed that the role of Financial Services Operations Manager was being made redundant. As she did not have two year’s service, she was not eligible for redundancy. She was given a letter at the meeting and told she would receive three month’s notice. She was in shock. She was told no other managerial position was available, this is not true.

Two weeks later she saw the position of Head of Operations with the same job description being advertised by Mr. Boshell on Linkedin and Indeed. No issue was ever raised with her or explanation. She had a good work record and is shocked to be treated like this. The company were not in financial difficulties, they had just taken on twenty customer service agents which had been outsourced. This had a major impact on her mental health and confidence.

The Respondent raises a preliminary issue that there is no jurisdiction to deal with the claim as there were no collective redundancies at the time the Complainant was made redundant. The HR representative Mr. Yipp gave evidence the Complainant was the only individual made redundant out of 19 staff. The threshold for collective redundancy has not been met. The Respondent submits the claim is misconceived.

Under the contract of employment of the Complainant can be terminated at any time by the company on payment of notice. She received 3 month’s notice of termination. Her role was not replaced. The role of Head of Operations advertised subsequently is a more senior role involving management of the Team, arrears and presenting at Board Level on strategic issues.

I have heard and considered the submissions and evidence of the parties and their witnesses.

The Complainant has made a complaint pursuant to S11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 which concerns a breach of S9 or S10 of the Act which requires consultation with affected employees or employees’ representatives where collective redundancies are proposed:

S 9. Obligation on employer to consult employees' representatives

(1) Where an employer proposes to create collective redundancies he shall, with a view to reaching an agreement, initiate consultations with employees' representatives

(2) Consultations under this section shall include the following matters—

(a) the possibility of avoiding the proposed redundancies, reducing the number of employees affected by them or mitigating their consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures aimed, inter alia, at aid for redeploying or retraining employees made redundant,

(b) the basis on which it will be decided which particular employees will be made redundant.

(3) Consultations under this section shall be initiated at the earliest opportunity and in any event at least 30 days before the first notice of dismissal is given.

10. Obligation on employer to supply certain information

(1) For the purpose of consultations under section 9, the employer concerned shall supply the employees' representatives with all relevant information relating to the proposed redundancies.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), information supplied under this section shall include the following, of which details shall be given in writing—

(a) the reasons for the proposed redundancies,

(b) the number, and description of categories, of employees whom it is proposed to make redundant,

(c) the number of employees, and description of categories, normally employed,

(cc (i) the number (if any) of agency workers to which the Protection of Employees (Temporary Agency Work) Act 2012 applies engaged to work for the employer,

(ii) those parts of the employer's business in which those agency workers are, for the time being, working, and

(iii) the type of work that those agency workers are engaged to do, and

(d) the period during which it is proposed to effect the proposed redundancies,

(e) the criteria proposed for the selection of the workers to be made redundant, and

(f) the method of calculating any redundancy payments other than those methods set out in the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2022 or any other relevant enactment for the time being in force or, subject thereto, in practice.

(3) An employer shall as soon as possible supply the Minister with copies of all information supplied in writing under subsection (2).

 It is a prerequisite in this complaint that collective redundancies were taking place in the company at the time the Complainant was notified of her redundancy. The HR representative Mr. Yipp gave evidence that the Complainant was the only individual made redundant out of 19 staff employed.

S6 of the Act provides “collective redundancies” means dismissals effected by an employer for reasons not related to the individual where in any period of 30 consecutive days the number of dismissals at least 5 in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 50 employees. As there were no collective redundancies taking place at the time of the Complainant’s redundancy, I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

As there were no collective redundancies taking place at the time of the Complainant’s redundancy, I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.