Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Manager

A Health & Wellbeing Charity

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms H Rowe of IBEC

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act,1969

CA-00065998

16/09/2024

The issue in dispute was the alleged Unfair Dismissal of the Worker on the grounds of an alleged ill specified Restructuring.

The employment began on the 4th September 2023 and ended on the 15th March 2024.

The rate of pay was stated to have been €5,986, per month, for a 37-hour week.

The Worker was self-represented and gave an extensive Oral testimony supported by considerable documentation.

In essence, his case was that he had been recruited on the 4th September 2023 as a Senior Manager. All had gone well until the 12th March 2024 when he was informed that due to a corporate restructuring he was being dismissed / made Redundant.  He left the Company on the 14th March 2024. It was made clear that it was nothing personal or critical, towards the Worker. It was a Corporate Structural review, and two posts were supressed, his and other colleague.

After some initial discussions he had pointed out that he was no longer on Probation. (This Probation Period having expired on the 4th March 2024). An initial Employer settlement of six weeks’ pay was then enhanced by three months’ pay as per his contract.

In his Oral testimony the Worker pointed out that any consultation and or prior warning had been minimal. It was obviously well known to the relevant Senior HR Managers in advance of the meeting of the 12th March.  No opportunities, in sufficient time, to discuss alternatives were made available to him and information on other possible roles either in the North or the South had been minimal.

In summary he had been let go in complete variance with any accepted good HR Practices and in particular SI 146 of 2000 -Statutory Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary practices. The Worker contended that the entire process had been rushed and was simply a box ticking exercise. It was known that he had a disability, but this had been ignored.

He had eventually secured alternative employment but at a significantly reduced salary. Detailed figures of his losses were presented in evidence.

The Restructuring decision had been made by a new overall Group CEO but his did not absolve it of the need for Natural Justice towards an employee. The Worker was seeking a considerably enhanced severance package that would go someway towards redressing his financial losses which were never of his making.

The Employer was represented by Ms Rowe of IBEC assisted by Company Managers. Oral Testimony was given supported by a lengthy Written Submission. The Employer was a Charitable Organisation operating in both jurisdictions on the Island of Ireland.

In essence the Employer position was that the CEO had carried out a complete Corporate Review and had decided that the positions of the Worker and a colleague, Senior Communications Manager and Policy Research Officer, respectively, did not align with an appropriate Corporate Structure for a Charitable Organisation. It had been decided to suppress both positions.

It was nothing personal with the job holders and all suggestions of any discrimination were completely refuted.

The Employer exhibited copy e mail traffic (e mail of the 22nd March 2024) with the Worker in March 2024 where the Worker had stated that he considered

“the matter fully resolved and will accept the closure on the terms stated”

A reference was sought by the Worker on the 31st May 2024. At all times the relationship had been cordial, and it was always made clear that no fault of any nature had been found in the Worker’s performance.

The Oral testimony from the HR Manager reiterated that proper procedures had been followed. The worker had short service and unfortunately his position was no longer felt to be a requirement of the Organisation. There was nothing personal. The HR Manager felt that the parting had been amicable, if most unfortunate, in March 2024. The Organisation was very surprised and somewhat disappointed to learn of the WRC referral in mid-September 2024.

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

The dispute is under the Industrial Relations act, 1969 as the Worker does not have the qualifying service to seek a Statutory redundancy Payment under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

However, guidance can be sought here.

Redundancy under the 1967 Act is generally accepted to arise when

Redundancy Payments Act,1967

General right to redundancy payment.

7.—(1)

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

Taking guidance from the 1967 Act it is clear that Section 7(2) (a) applies

(a)     the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b)      

Accordingly in this dispute and following the guidance from the 1967 Act above the ending of the Workers’ contract is legally acceptable, albeit quite unpleasant, for the Worker.

Alternative employment opportunities both in the South and the North were canvassed with the Worker but realistically none were really suitable.

Regrettably for the Worker, the dispute, albeit referred under the Industrial Relations Act,1969, can have no sustainable grounds.

Short service Redundancy