ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969

Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00004389

Parties:

	Worker	Employer
Anonymised Parties	A Worker	A Distillery

Representatives

Gearoid O’Bradaigh instructed by Seán T. O'Reilly & Co.

Barry Reynolds, Littler Ireland

Dispute(s):

Act	Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	IR - SC - 00004389	29/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Date of Hearing: 09/12/2025

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.

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 Workers Case:

The worker submitted that she was denied access to a collective redundancy scheme. The worker is seeking inclusion in the enhanced redundancy package that was offered to other employees in the months prior to her retirement. She submitted that she settled a High Court case with her employer in December 2024 and retired in April 2025. She submitted that she became aware of an enhanced offer made to her colleagues in October. She confirmed that she was out of the workplace on sick leave, and in receipt of an income continuance payment, for a number of years prior to her retirement.

The worker submitted that she wrote to the employer shortly on 17 December 2024 seeking details of her redundancy payment. She submitted that the employer did not give her a substantive response until March 2025 after she had involved her solicitor in the correspondence.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The employer submitted that the worker was not dismissed or laid off from her employment and, as such, redundancy was not an appropriate option. She had been out of the workplace on long-term sick leave since 2018 and was in receipt of an income continuance payment. This ceased upon her retirement.

The employer submitted that the worker did not participate in the workplace. She was not fit to return to work and was due to retire in April 2025. It was noted that she did not take a grievance against her employer, however, the employer indicated that this was no reflection on the worker. The employer submitted that the discussions regarding the settlement of the High Court case included an amount in respect of loss of earnings and also that the worker had signed a waiver against pursuing other cases at that time.

Conclusions:

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The content of the settlement agreement in relation to the High Court case was not opened to me. However, documentation relating to the occupational health reports was provided and the two representatives provided comprehensive submissions. The parties acknowledged that the worker was on long term sick leave and was in receipt of an income continuance payment until she retired.

The employer confirmed that the worker was not offered an option to participate in the enhanced redundancy package as she was not included in the headcount. She was already in a position where she had not been in work for a number of years. The employer submitted that the worker had been certified as unfit for work and that the opinion of the medical professional was that she was unlikely to return to work. The employer suggested that any loss of earnings current and future loss of earnings was included in the settlement reached with the worker. This is disputed by the worker. Neither party provided documentary evidence in relation to this, and I am not in a position to comment on whether it was included in the settlement or otherwise.

As to why the worker was not offered an enhanced redundancy package, it was suggested that this was because she was not working, or fit to work, at the time of the offer and also that she was about to retire. In response the complainant suggested that the employer should have made further enquires as to her fitness to work.

Having considered the positions of both parties, I do not think that it was reasonable to expect an employer to launch a fitness to work enquiry four months before the workers retirement, given the lengthy process that they had already completed some years previously, and the decision of the medical expert that “Not only do I believe that she is unfit for work, but I think the prognosis for return to work Is guarded at best. In my opinion she will remain unfit for work for this foreseeable future”.

The worker never sought to challenge the medical opinion or obtained a contrary medical opinion, not even from her GP. In more than 6 years, she had never sought to cease the receipt of her income continuance payment or a return to work.

I note that the employer continued to invite the worker to its Christmas party and continued to offer the worker her ‘employees spirits allowance’ on an annual basis throughout her certified sick leave, this is commendable.

As to the employer offering the enhanced redundancy package to the employee, in all the circumstances, I do not think that this was a reasonable proposition.

I note that the worker sought information regarding her eligibility for the enhance package from the employer on 17 December 2024 and only received a substantive response in March 2025, shortly before her retirement. I do not think that this delay was reasonable.

Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

I recommend that, in future, the employer reply to emails from employees in good time.

Dated: 05/01/2026