UDD2532

UD/24/78

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00047888 (CA-00058861-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 08 June 2024 in accordance with Section 8A of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2015. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 August 2025.

The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Sejal Tandel (“the Complainant”) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer made under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 (“the Act”) in a complaint that she was unfairly dismissed by her former employer, Accenture Limited (“the Respondent”).

The Adjudication Officer held that she did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint in circumstances where the Complainant had signed a severance agreement and had waived her right to bring a claim under the Act.

1. Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 6 December 2021. 

On 23 February 2023, the Complainant was notified that, due to a reduction in client demand, she was to move to a redeployment pool. In March 2023, 400 roles in the organisation were placed in scope for redundancy. On 23 May 2023, the Complainant was given notice of dismissal by reason of redundancy. She was provided with a waiver agreement setting out terms of an ex-gratia payment. The Complainant signed the waiver agreement on 5 June 2023.

The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent was terminated on 15 June 2023.

2. Preliminary matter.

The Respondent submits that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as the parties entered into a lawful agreement which precludes the Complainant from bringing such a claim.

The Court proposed that it would hear and decide the preliminary matter, in the first instance, and if it decided that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the complaint, a further hearing would be scheduled to consider the substantive appeal. The parties agreed to that proposed approach.

3. Summary Position of the Respondent

The Respondent submits that the Court should dismiss the appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

In February 2023, the Complainant’s team was placed into redeployment due to reduced client demand. The Complainant attended weekly meetings to explore alternative roles; however, no suitable opportunities were found for her. In March 2023, the Respondent commenced a collective redundancy process affecting 400 roles. An Employee Consultation Forum was established, and impacted employees were provided with information and support, including access to legal advice and outplacement services. 

During the collective consultation process, an ex-gratia lump sum of €3,000 was offered to employees with less than two years’ service who were not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. This offer was subsequently increased to €4,000 (or 4 weeks for each year of service, whichever was the greater), subject to the execution of a waiver agreement releasing the Respondent from any claims relating to the employee’s employment or termination of employment.

As no redeployment opportunities were found for the Complainant she was given one month’s notice of redundancy and presented with a severance agreement offering €6,799, comprising €4,352 ex gratia payment (including €250 for legal advice and €102 for VHI coverage) and €2,447 in lieu of notice.

The Complainant accepted and signed the agreement, which included a waiver of all claims against the Respondent. The agreement stated that if she pursued any claims, she would be required to repay the ex-gratia payment and legal costs. The Complainant has not attempted to return the payment.

The waiver agreement is valid and binding, and the Complainant’s acceptance of the payment constitutes a waiver of her right to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The agreement meets the legal standards for enforceability: it was clear, comprehensive, and the Complainant was advised to seek legal advice. The company provided a financial contribution towards such advice.

The Respondent referred the Court to Sunday World Newspapers Limited –v- Kinsella and Another [2007] IEHC 324, where Smyth J. in overturning the decision of the Labour Court stated: -

“the Agreement is expressly stated to be in full and final settlement and that means what it says. It says so in express terms and referable to enumerated acts and all or any employment legislation in respect of any and all outstanding entitlements whether statutory or otherwise stated or as yet unstated”.

There can be no question from the language used in the waiver that this claim is excluded by virtue of being captured by the waiver which states that it is in full and final settlement of all claims.

The complaint under the Act is precluded by a legally binding severance agreement signed on 5 June 2023 by the Complainant, which explicitly waived her right to bring any employment-related claims.

4. Summary Position of the Complainant

The Complainant submits that her dismissal was unfair and discriminatory. During the redeployment process, she applied for over 40 internal positions but received only one interview.  The consultation process failed to adequately address the unique challenges faced by non-EU sponsored employees like the Complainant.

The Complainant felt compelled to sign the severance agreement, due to financial pressure, as she had no viable alternatives and none were provided by the Respondent. The Respondent did not take her concerns seriously, particularly regarding visa issues that restricted her employment options. She signed the agreement under great duress, which prevented her from fully understanding and voluntarily agreeing to the terms. It was not a fully informed consent. Agreements reached under coercion should not violate the rights of employees. Such agreements warrant thorough examination.

The Complainant relies on Allen & Ors v GMB [2008] EWCA Civ 810 which illustrates that a waiver or agreement obtained through misleading information or manipulation, particularly in situations involving discrimination, may be invalidated. This case is relevant as the withholding of critical information and manipulation during the redeployment process by the Respondent led to her unfair dismissal under the guise of redundancy.

5. Testimony of the Complainant

The Complainant attended a consultation meeting with a HR representative, where they went through the waiver agreement. The HR person read out relevant points and told her that she had time to seek legal advice about the document.

The Complainant sought advice from friends but did not seek legal advice. She did not try to get legal advice, as she did not think she needed it at that point. She was under time pressure as she had an interview for another role before the deadline to sign the waiver document. Her sole focus was on preparing for that interview and securing an alternative role.

She signed the document on the 5 June 2023. No one in the company put her under pressure to sign the document. She was under personal financial pressure to secure a role, as she could not work without a visa. Her visa status related to her employment with the Respondent.

Under cross examination, the Complainant accepted that after receiving the waiver agreement on 23 May 2023, she had two weeks to consider the document before she decided to sign it on 5 June 2023. She accepted that the cut-off date for signing the document was 9 June 2023.

The Complainant acknowledged that she received an invitation to attend a second consultation meeting but chose not to do so as she was “100%” focused on getting a role at that time.

She signed the waiver agreement under her own free will, as she was under financial pressure. She accepted that she never raised any concerns about the document with the Respondent, nor did she say that tell the company that she was under any duress.

She understood that by signing the waiver document and accepting a sum of money, she could not take a case against the Respondent. She understood that there were no consequences if she chose not to sign the document, other than not receiving the ex-gratia payment. She was aware that the ex-gratia amount on offer to employees was increased during the consultation process.

The Complainant understood that by taking a claim she had breached the terms of the waiver agreement. She decided that the company had violated her rights after her employment ended. A waiver agreement cannot take away her statutory rights.

6. Testimony of Mr Lawlor

Mr Lawlor gave evidence about the general consultation process and information available to impacted employees. In his view, about half of those employees given the opportunity to get legal advice avail of that offer. Employees could also avail of outplacement services and the services of an immigration officer based in Dublin.

He had no direct knowledge of the one-to-one engagements with the Complainant and was not involved in any conversations with her.

7. Relevant Law

The Act at Section 13 provides as follows:

13.— A provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not and whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) shall be void in so far as it purports to exclude or limit the application of, or is inconsistent with, any provision of this Act.

8. Deliberations

While the Complainant referred to alleged breaches of other employment enactments during the hearing, including the Employment Equality Act, Redundancy Payments Acts and the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, the Unfair Dismissals Act is not the appropriate statutory provision for the enforcement of terms set out in those employment enactments. The only matter for consideration by the Court in the within appeal is an appeal of a decision made under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules provides that: -

“The Court may, in its discretion, give a preliminary ruling on any aspect of the case where it is satisfied that time and expense may be saved by the giving of such a ruling and/or where it has the potential to be determinative of the case”.

The preliminary matter for consideration in this case is whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to hear the substantive appeal in circumstances where the parties entered into an agreement which, the Respondent contends, precludes the Complainant from bring her claim.

The Complainant contends that her signing of a waiver agreement on 5 June 2023 in return for payment of an ex-gratia payment could not result in a forfeiture of her statutory rights. The Respondent refutes that assertion.

An employee may waive their statutory rights, if done so on an informed basis and of the employees own free will.

In this case, the Complainant’s written submission to the Court about signing the waiver under duress from the Respondent was contradicted by her own evidence. She said that she signed the document of her own free will, without duress from the Respondent. She further stated that she never raised any concerns with the Respondent about the document or advised the Respondent that she was under any duress.

The Complainant’s evidence was that she understood the relevant points in the document in advance of signing it.  She understood that she was consenting to waive her statutory rights and, by accepting a sum of money, she could not take case against the Respondent. She also understood that she did not have to sign the document.

In the Court’s judgement, the Complainant was given an adequate opportunity to consider the document and to take legal advice before signing it. She had possession of the document for two weeks before signing it on 5 June 2023, four days in advance of the cut-off date. The Complainant accepted that she had the opportunity to seek professional legal advice before signing the waiver but chose not to do so, as her sole focus was on preparing for an upcoming interview and securing an alternative role. She chose not to attend a second consultation meeting, where she could have raised any quires or concerns that she may had had.

In the view of the Court, the agreement of the Complainant to waive statutory rights was supported by adequate consideration. The waiver arose from a set of circumstances where the ex-gratia amount on offer was increased during the consultation process.  She was offered the time and opportunity to take legal advice but chose not to do did not.

In the view of the Court, the Respondent made adequate efforts to ensure that the Complainant could give an informed consent insofar as the Complainant was clearly advised to take legal advice and given contrition towards legal fees.

While the Act was not identified in the agreement as legislation in respect of which the Complainant waived her rights, by the Complainant’s own evidence she was signed the document with full knowledge that she was waiving her right to take a claim.

The Court fully accepts that the difficult circumstances the Complainant was under during this time.  It is regrettable for her that she did not seek legal advice until after she signed the document. However, based on the facts presented, the Court finds that by signing the waiver document on 5 June 2025 the Complainant waived her right to take a complaint under the Act.

As a result, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the within appeal.

9. Finding

The Court has no jurisdiction to hear the within appeal.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
10 September 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.