Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lisa  Schneider

Majorel Ireland Limited.

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 In person

Brian Joyce 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-00057628-001

10/07/2023

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from 19th October 2020 until 16th June 2023. The Complainant was employed as a Quality Analyst.

This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th July 2023.

In the Complainant’s own words she has stated:

The main reason for my complaint originates from the day I received the notification requesting me to sign my Compromise Agreement and Settlement letter stating my right to Redundancy.

As requested, I signed the form of acceptance which was ready for me to sign and already signed by the other party. On the copy, you will see my signature made on 18/05/2023 and the signature of the People Operations Specialist.

Not long after, the document was made void AFTER it was signed by both parties.

As of today, I still have not received a proper answer from my former employer about the fact that it is legally allowed or not to withdraw an official document guaranteeing my redundancy payment right after it was signed by both parties.

Looking at the email exchange you will see that I expressed my concerns regarding the letter made void and I clearly ask how it is possible to invalidate such document after signature.

Firstly, Cliff Herron only explains that since they secured a suitable position before my last day it cancels my right to redundancy either I accept or deny the offer. He adds that by the time they made me the offer the Compromise Agreement letter was done and gone through the system. But due to timing issue the document was sent to me by mistake before making the offer.

However, he did not answer my question about the validity of the document, so I had to ask again insisting on the legal aspect of the matter.

It then took 5 days to get the reply from his management, and here again I still do not have a clear answer about the legal possibility to withdraw an official document after signature. I had to ask one more time, explaining that I will look for legal advice since my questions were not properly answered.

My complaint is a direct result of this exchange since I do not comprehend Majorel’s justification. How can my refusal to accept a redeployment offer cancel the Compromise Agreement and settlement letter after it was signed by both parties?

This exchange shows my will to find a response and an agreement with my former employer before seeking legal advice and making a complaint. However, Majorel simply stated the generic guidelines on Redundancy rights, not providing a proper answer for my question.

On paragraph 4.2 of page 7 it says that my termination of employment was voluntary resignation due to my refusal of the redeployment offer whereas it was a suitable alternative.

It is thus defined as my choice.

However, can it be really considered a choice when your entire project in Dublin is being laid off? Can it be really considered a choice when you see colleagues with various termination date leaving on a weekly basis from 31/03 to 16/06.

To contrast the statement made on paragraph 4.4, this redeployment offer, falling less than a month before my last day, felt like I was being pushed to take on an unreliable job with unsafe conditions regarding my future as an employee.

As an illustration, I’m aware (although do not have written statement) that other colleagues have received redeployment offers to other teams, but eventually ended up laid off since the Client decided to not continue services with Majorel in Dublin.

124 people have been impacted by this layoff and I am wondering how many of them are still working for Majorel in Dublin?

Moreover, the Majorel building in Eastpoint Business Park is now available for rent, proving the unreliability of the offer made to me in May.

In comparison with the statement in paragraph 4.5 is it exactly unreasonable to decline an offer from an employer who terminated the contract of tens of employees before me? Is it really unreasonable to decline the offer when our department was made redundant due to the cost of the Dublin location based on the client’s decision as stated in paragraph 3.2? The redeployment offer would have made me work for the exact same client simply in another department.

How can it be considered a voluntary resignation rather than a layoff since I could not hold my current role because the whole department in Dublin was closed down?

Between the time the layoffs were announced on 22/02 and the day the redeployment offer was made on 18/05 4 months had passed and it was made very clear by Majorel that we shouldn’t count on receiving redeployment offers. I was one of the few who had the longest notice since my last day was the 16/06. Leaving enough time without receiving any redeployment offer pushing to start looking elsewhere.

In paragraph 3.5 it is mentioned that relocation opportunities to Portugal were possible which is true, but you would understand that this doesn’t represent a suitable offer considering the obligations and fees around moving abroad and the different in terms of salary compared to Ireland. Such offer wasn’t directly made to me which doesn’t constitute a valid point.

Paragraph 3.9 mentions the necessity of a witness signature on the Compromise Agreement letter. However, where is the written proof that the letter is made void by the absence of a witness? Since I was hired by Majorel, none of my contracts required the presence and signature of a witness since they were signed via DocuSign (as well as the Compromise letter).

As a reference, you can see on the file that none of the contracts required the presence and signature of a witness.

You should also be aware that even though I was made redundant on February 2023 my performance was not impacted since I attended work as normal and received great feedback from my line manager. As proof, my quarterly bonuses have not been impacted by the decision to layoff an entire department. Even after declining the redeployment offer, my performance remained the same and I received bonuses in accordance. This shows that my duty as an employee was done from my first day on 19/10/2020 to my last on 16/06/2023.

Overall, I do not comprehend how an official document can be withdrawn after the signature of both parties. Claiming a timing issue to justify making the letter void doesn’t constitute a valid argument and seems rather unprofessional in a context of massive layoff.

This justifies why I have decided to make this complaint and why I’m explaining my case in front of you today.

Background to the Respondent

The Respondent first opened in 1992, over 30 years ago, and in January 2019, the new entity of Majorel was created following a merger of a number of brands, to create a leading customer experience organization. The Respondent is a global customer experience leader with more than 500 clients across the world, with 82,000+ team members based in 45 countries across 5 continents with 70+ languages. They support client customers at any time, through every device and in the manner’2 they expect of their brands.

 Background to the Complainant

 The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 19 October 2020 as a Content Analyst in the Customer Service team. The Complainant remained in this role for almost one year, until 18 October 2021 when she was promoted to Junior Quality Analyst. In July 2022, the Complainant’s base salary was increased by 3% to €31,518, following her successful completion of one year in this role and subsequent promotion to Quality Analyst. Her salary was then reviewed in line with the internal progression model and from 18th October 2022, this was increased to €35,363, which remained the same until her employment ceased. The Complainant worked a 40-hour week and had a yearly remuneration of €35,363. This role was placed at risk of redundancy in February 2023. The Complainant remained in this role until the termination of her employment by reason of voluntary resignation in June 2023, as she did not accept the offer of a suitable alternative role as provided by the Respondent.

Background to the Claim:

On 22 February 2023, the Respondent made an announcement of redundancies during a departmental meeting with all employees. The announcement was made by Mr David Rooney, Service Delivery Manager, with support from the Human Resources Department. The announcement provided information regarding a phased wind down to begin from the end of March to mid-June 2023 and all those not present at the departmental meeting were contacted via telephone by the Respondent to provide them with the necessary information. The Respondent then issued written notification to all employees on the day of the announcement, with an FAQ document also provided. On 23 February 2023, One-to-one sessions with employees commenced and the Respondent sought volunteers for employee representatives for consultation. The Respondent notified the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, advising of the redundancies, projected to impact 124 employees. As required, the Respondent provided the names of the employee representatives in this communication and outlined the dates of the consultation meetings in the.

These redundancies came as a result of a client of the Respondent’s making a decision to wind down the entire department due to the macro-economic climate and increased competition for search ad revenues in more cost-effective locations. This rationale was confirmed to all employees at the departmental meeting, one-to-one meetings, and in subsequent communication. All roles in the content curation department assigned to this Client were at risk as a result of the Respondent’s decision.

Due to the number of employees impacted, one-to-one meetings were scheduled over a two-day period with all those effected. These meetings were conducted by members of the People Operations team. The Complainant attended her one-to-one meeting on 24 February 2023 at 9.45am with Ms Eimer Quinn, People Operations Manager.

 In total five consultation meetings were scheduled with the elected employee representatives on 1, 9, 14, 22, and 29 March 2023. All employees received correspondence from the Respondent as to who their elected employee representatives were and thus, had opportunities to meet with their representatives individually should they wish.

During the consultation period with the employee representatives, alternative roles were discussed, with some opportunities for relocation to Portugal available. A small portion of employees expressed interest in these alternative roles, however the Complainant failed to do so. The Respondent supported all employees throughout the process, providing presentations and information regarding supports available to them during this transitionary period

 Further to the communication between the Complainant and Respondent relating to the fact that the employee’s role was at risk of redundancy and extensive consultation period with elected employee representatives, the Complainant was provided formal notification of redundancy on 2 March 2023.This letter stated that the Complainant’s role was to be made redundant on 16 June 2023, unless a suitable redeployment opportunity is secured and that; “Should a suitable redeployment opportunity become available for you between now and 16thJune 2023 this notification will be withdrawn and your employment with the Company will continue in your new role. You will forfeit any right to redundancy compensation in these circumstances.”

 The relevant compromise agreement and settlement letters were drafted by the People Operations Team. Subsequently, a request was sent from the People Operations team to the HR Administration Team to issue this to the Complainant on 17 May 2023, as the Complainant had not expressed an interest in the alternative redeployment opportunities provided to date by the Respondent.

The compromise agreement settlement letter was issued to the Complainant on 17 May 2023, by Ms Ann Hamilton-Lyons, People Operations Director. This letter was sent via DocuSign and outlined the severance package the Complainant was entitled to.

The agreement was signed by the Complainant on 18 October 2023 (DocuSign Timestamp - Appendix 12), however required a witness signature, which was to be directed a member of the People Operations team to be signed after the Complainant had signed.

However, on 18 May 2023, prior to the Complainant signing this compromise agreement, a suitable redeployment opportunity arose. Mr Cliff Herron, People Operations Partner, and Ms Viktoriia Shushkova, Quality Manager, met with the Complainant remotely, via a video call, to inform her of the suitable alternative role that had become available. As outlined during this meeting, the Complainants role upon acceptance would remain the same, as would all her terms and conditions of employment. The only difference between her role at that time and this suitable alternative was the lack of requirement of French speaking, as this was provided for already by the Client’s employee on another team and line of business.

Later that day, 18 May 2023, Mr Herron emailed the Complainant to both thank her for her participation and to advise that he was aware that at that one day prior to this meeting she had received the Compromise Letter, but that due to the proposed suitable alternative redeployment role, the compromise agreement was being withdrawn. This was in accordance with the redundancy notification letter provided to the Complainant, which provided that should a suitable redeployment opportunity become available for her, between 02 March 2023 and 16 June 2023, notification of redundancy would be withdrawn and her employment with the Respondent would continue in the new suitable alternative role.

A meeting took place on 22 May 2023 with the Complainant, Mr Herron, and Mr Egor Dubrova, Quality Lead, during which the Complainant was advised again of the suitable alternative role, the lack of changes to her terms and conditions, and all training that could have been provided to support her in her development within the new role. The Respondent again affirmed that failure to accept this suitable alternative role, redundancy would be negated as per previous redundancy correspondence.

The Complainant emailed Mr Herron on 19 May with queries regarding the suitable alternative redeployment offer and the signing of the compromise agreement. Mr Herron engaged with the Complainant on her queries between 19 May – 30 May 2023. The Respondents agreeably answered the Complainants questions and provided her with all relevant information, advising her that based on the initial letter sent in March, any offer of suitable alternative redeployment opportunities arising prior to 16 June that went unaccepted would negate a redundancy situation, despite the compromise agreement being sent in the interim, which in this case was ultimately a timing issue.

On 22 May 2023, the Complainant advised Mr Herron and Ms Shushkova that she would not be accepting the proposed suitable alternative redeployment opportunity provided by the Respondent., Mr Herron confirmed receipt of her verbal resignation and wished her success in her future endeavours.

Having not received any additional correspondence or queries from the Complainant, her employment ended with the Respondent by means of voluntary resignation on 16 June 2023. The Respondent operates a monthly pay schedule and employees typically receive their monthly pay on the 28 of every month. The Complainants final pay was received in June, when she received payment for all time worked in that month, 8 hours of untaken, accrued annual leave and her healthcare was paid for by the Respondent. As the Complainant ceased employment post the internal payroll deadline, the Complainant was ‘reinstated’ for the month of July to ensure she received her quarterly performance-related bonus. The Complainant’s June payslip was provided via email on 3 July 2023 and the payslip containing details of her performance-related bonus were provided on 31 July 2023.

Respondents Position

It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant holds no entitlement to a redundancy payment. The Respondent notified the Complainant on numerous occasions that her role was ‘at risk’ of redundancy, which was evident throughout the process, from the departmental meeting, subsequent consultation period with elected employee representatives, and relevant correspondence. When the Complainant was advised, along with all affected employees and put at risk of redundancy, she was given the opportunity to engage in a consultation process with the Respondent until a suitable alternative role became available. Unfortunately, due to timing issues the Complainant was issued her compromise agreement to sign, however, was not signed in the presence of a witness as required and was subsequently deemed null and void as the suitable alternative was proposed to the Complainant. This was outlined to the Complainant during meetings and in-writing on numerous occasions.

From the claim form, the Complainant does not appear to be disputing the entire redundancy process, solely the fact that she should have received her redundancy payment, despite the fact she refused the suitable alternative role proposed, as was her prerogative. As such the Complainant’s termination of employment was by reason of voluntary resignation due to her choice not to accept the proposed suitable alternative role.

Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, covers an employee’s disentitlement to redundancy payment for refusal to accept alternative employment:

15.—(1) An employee F34[...] shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if F34[...]—

 a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to reengage him under a new contract of employment,

b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before F35[the termination of his contract],

c) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of F35[the termination of his contract], and d) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

An employee F34[...] shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if F34[...]—

a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before F35[the termination of his contract],

c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,

d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of F35[the termination of his contract], and

e) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

In line with the above, the Respondent had offered to provide the Complainant with a contract addendum reflecting the suitable alternative role, to the same capacity, location, and with all terms and conditions of employment remaining the exact same as the provisions within her contract of employment. The suitable alternative role exactly the same as her role at the time; with the same salary, job title, role and responsibilities, and Client. The only differences being the team the Complainant would work alongside, the management reporting line change and the French language not being a role requirement (Original job description

This contract was to commence on, or prior to the Complainant’s termination date of her role with the Respondent at that time, 16 June 2023, meaning there would be no break in the Complainant’s continuous service with the Respondent. It is the Respondents position that the Complainant unreasonable refused this offer of employment and subsequently voluntarily resigned.

The Complainant herself acknowledged this in her complaint form submitted to the WRC, stating: “I understand that it was a suitable offer (same salary, same position, same benefit, 1 more day of working from home added, and same working hours, which should cancel my right to redundancy in the event that I accept or decline the offer.”

While the Complainant returned a signed copy of the compromise agreement, this was not valid without the required witness signature, which after the Complainant had signed the agreement, was redirected to the Respondent for final sign-off. In addition, this was signed by the Complainant further to a meeting with the Respondent where the suitable alternative role was discussed. 4.8. The Respondent had made it clear in writing on 02 March 2023 that should a suitable redeployment opportunity become available for the Complainant between 02 March and 16 June 2023 the redundancy notification would be withdrawn and her employment with the Respondent would continue. It was also advised that she would forfeit any right to redundancy compensation in these circumstances, the offer of a redundancy payment was made strictly subject to there being no suitable alternative employment found by the 16 June. This offer was strictly conditional (upon no alternative role being found by the 16 June 2023).  As a suitable alternative role became available while this was ongoing before the 16 June 2023 the Respondent therefore retracted the offer of a redundancy payment and deemed the compromise agreement null and void.

The Labour Court case of Cinders Limited v Cecilia Byrne RPD1811 considered the issue of entitlement (or disentitlement) to a redundancy payment where an employee has been offered to alternative employment which the employee subsequently refuses. The Labour Court considered there were two issues:

1. The suitability of the offers of alternative employment.

2. Whether the complainant’s refusal of the offer of employment was reasonable in all the circumstances.

This approach was also followed in a General Operative v Fireplace Manufacturer ADJ00029124.

It was highlighted in Cinders Limited v Cecilia Byrne RPD1811 that “the suitability of the employment is an objective matter, whereas the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal depends on factors personal to him and is a subjective matter to be considered from the employee’s point of view.”

 In terms of the suitability of the offer of alternative employment, as outlined above, the alternative role proposed can be deemed a suitable alternative as it was essentially the exact same role, bar the fact it did not involve knowledge of the French language.

Along with this, the Complainant did not inform the Respondent of any mitigating factors, which would highlight why the role was not suitable, as such it can only be viewed that there were no issues that would need to be considered as to why this was not a suitable alternative. As highlighted above, the Complainant herself acknowledges on her WRC complaint form that was a suitable offer. It appears that this claim is solely the basis she had signed her part of the compromise agreement.

On this basis, it is the Respondent position that it can only be deemed that the Complainant disentitled herself to a redundancy payment by her refusal to accept the suitable alternative role.

Conclusion

The Respondent respectfully requests the Adjudication Officer finds that the claims taken are without merit and therefore must fail, and to find in favour of the Respondent.

It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant holds no entitlement to a redundancy payment.

The Respondent conducted a thorough and fair redundancy process with the Complainant, until a suitable alternative role became available. Unfortunately, due to timing issues the Complainant was issued her compromise agreement just as they became aware of this suitable alternative role. The Complainant refused to accept this suitable alternative role, and as a result her employment was terminated by reason of voluntary resignation.

This complaint was submitted by the Complainant under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

The Respondent has very clearly stated the following:

Further to the communication between the Complainant and Respondent relating to the fact that the employee’s role was at risk of redundancy and extensive consultation period with elected employee representatives, the Complainant was provided formal notification of redundancy on 2 March 2023.This letter stated that the Complainant’s role was to be made redundant on 16 June 2023, unless a suitable redeployment opportunity is secured and that; “Should a suitable redeployment opportunity become available for you between now and 16th June 2023 this notification will be withdrawn and your employment with the Company will continue in your new role. You will forfeit any right to redundancy compensation in these circumstances.”

Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 reads as follows:

15. (1) An employee who has received the notice required by section 17 shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if in the period of two weeks ending on the date of dismissal –

a)       His employer has offered to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment

b)      The provisions of the contract as renewed, or the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before his dismissal,

c)       The renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of dismissal, and

d)      He has unreasonably refused the offer.

In the instant case the Complainant was offered suitable alternative employment which she refused.

This complaint has been submitted by the Complainant under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 – there has been no breach of that Act. I must now conclude that the complaint as presented is not well founded.

This complaint has been submitted by the Complainant under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 – there has been no breach of that Act. I must now conclude that the complaint as presented is not well founded.

Redundancy Payments Act, 1967; suitable alternative employment.