ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019827
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Community Employment Supervisor | A Government Department |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00026241-001 | 13/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant has taken this case under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. At the hearing he also referred to the Industrial Relation Act 1969. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant said that he was a Community Employment Supervisor for twenty-five years and was made compulsorily redundant on 19 October 2018 on the closure of a Community Project that he had been working on in that time. He claims that he received his statutory redundancy payment of €30,516. However, he claims that the Respondent has not to date honoured an enhanced redundancy agreement that was entered into by the Department and his Trade Union on 7 June 2002 and was subsequently amended on 3 February 2005. He claims that the agreement reached meant that he, as a Community Employment Supervisor, was to be paid redundancy on the basis of an additional payment of 3.35 weeks per year of service on top of the Statutory redundancy. The Complainant referenced a number of previous Recommendations from Rights Commissioners and Adjudication Officers that recommended that the enhanced redundancy agreement be paid in favour of the claimants. The Complainant has asked that the same decision be made here in this case. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission in advance to the scheduled hearing and said that as it is not the correct Respondent in this case, it shall not be attending the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The case before me for consideration is a claim brought under the Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012. At the outset of the hearing I noted that the Complainant continually referred to a dispute under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. I informed him that case before me for consideration was the case under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 only. I have fully considered all the evidence both oral and written presented to me by the Complainant on the day of the hearing. I am satisfied that the Complainant was paid the Statutory redundancy and what he is seeking is what he determines is owed to him on foot of an enhanced redundancy agreement negotiated by his Trade Union and the Respondent’s predecessors. I am satisfied that my jurisdiction to investigate is limited to the claim under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012. I do not have jurisdiction to broaden the scope of this claim. Accordingly, I find that the within claim is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I find that the within claim is not well founded. The case fails. |
Dated: 11th December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Acts - not well founded – case fails |