Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Catriona  Douglas Nidubhglas

PFH TECHNOLOGY GROUP LIMITED (amended on consent at the hearing)

Representatives

  Self-Represented.

Cara Jane Walsh BL instructed by RDJ LLP

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-00065334-001

12/08/2024

The Complainant gave her evidence on affirmation. Documentary evidence was submitted and relied upon at the hearing.

Ms. Susan Manning, People Director, swore an affirmation at the outset of the hearing but did not give evidence. Detailed legal submissions were submitted and relied upon at the hearing.

The name of the Respondent was amended on consent at the outset of the hearing.

The Complainant outlined her complaint as follows:

She took issue with the process that led to her redundancy, beginning with the notice of termination of her remote working arrangements. She was then offered a termination agreement that did not include a legal advice clause or an offer of a contribution toward the cost of legal advice, along with medical expenses she incurred while on sick leave and tuition fees she incurred despite being made redundant. She also took issue with the redundancy process that led to the termination of her employment on 26 September 2024.

Upon inquiry, the Complainant confirmed that she did not receive a decision from a Deciding Officer regarding her redundancy.

During cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that her start date, as per her contract, was 1 October 2018, and her end date was 26 September 2024. She also accepted that she received the sum of €7,788 as statutory redundancy and that the calculation was correct.

The Respondent denied the Complainant’s complaint.

It was the Respondent’s submission that there was no decision by a Deciding Officer, nor was there any challenge by the Complainant to the statutory redundancy figure. It was submitted that the Complainant had accepted the calculation of the redundancy payment.

In response to the additional complaints raised at the hearing regarding medical, legal, and tuition expenses, it was submitted that, as a matter of law, an order cannot be made to compensate the Complainant under Section 39 of the Act in a complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission.

It was submitted that the complaint should be not well founded.

Section 39 (15) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) provides in relation to decisions of Deciding Officers:-

“(15) Any employer who is dissatisfied with a decision given by the Minister in relation to a rebate or with any decision given by a deciding officer in relation to any question specified in section 38 (1) (e) or 38 (1) (f), or any employee who is dissatisfied with a decision given by a deciding officer under section 38 or with any decision of an employer under this Act may appeal to the Director General against the decision; provided however, that the Director General shall not be competent to decide whether or not an employee is or was at the material time in employment which is or was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts.”

I find where the Complainant confirmed that she did not receive a decision from a Deciding Officer relating to her redundancy which is a pre-requisite step to initiating a complaint under Section 39 (15) of the Act.

Consequently, the Complainant’s appeal is disallowed.

The Complainant’s appeal is disallowed.

Redundancy – Deciding Officer