LCR23197

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: Section 20(1) (Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969).

BACKGROUND:

The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 9 April 2025 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 November 2025.

DETERMINATION:

The worker in this case seeks an enhanced ex-gratia redundancy package. The worker’s role was made redundant on 1 March 2024. He appealed that matter on the grounds that the redundancy package offered to him fell far short of an established precedent in the company. The employer rejected the appeal. The employer subsequently objected to an investigation of the worker’s complaint by the WRC.

In April 2025, the worker lodged this complaint to the Court. The employer declined to attend the Labour Court hearing held on 28 November 2025, so the Court has not had the benefit of its views on the matter in dispute.

The worker contends that he was neither offered nor paid the proper redundancy terms established by precedence in the company. The worker commenced employment with another named entity in 1988 and, following a transfer of undertakings process, his employment transferred to his former employer in 2022. The worker contends that all terms and conditions of his employment – including a policy providing enhanced redundancy terms of 6 weeks’ pay per year of service - transferred to his new employer as part of the TUPE process. The worker contends that after 26 years’ service he should receive a more generous redundancy package.

The Court has considered the oral and written submissions put to it in this case.

No adequate explanation was given for the delay in lodging a complaint to the WRC, and later to the Labour Court, once the worker exhausted the internal appeal process.

The worker confirmed that he received an ex-gratia payment in addition to his statutory redundancy entitlements, however, the package offered to him fell well below his expectations.

While the worker’s complaint is that his former employer failed to pay him established redundancy terms, he was unable to provide the Court with any documents at the hearing to support his contention that there was established precedent of enhanced redundancy terms in the company, or that any enhanced redundancy terms formed part of his terms and conditions when he transferred employment to the company in 2022.

The Court heard that the worker was one of several individuals whose positions were made redundant in the company in 2024. The Court in this case is asked to recommend that enhanced redundancy terms over and above what the Court understands applied to other Workers in the company should now be made to the worker.

The Court acknowledges that the termination of the Worker’s employment, through no fault of his own, gave rise to the payment of redundancy terms which did not meet his expectations. However, having regard to all the circumstances surrounding the matter, the Court is unable to recommend concession of the claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
JNF	______________________
03 December 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Julie Nicholl Flood, Court Secretary.