Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Iryna  Ivashyna

Adecco Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

IBEC

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-00068139-001

16/12/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 24th October 2020. The Complainant is an agency worker, previously assigned to a third party by the Respondent. The assignment in question ended on 2nd December 2024.

On 16th December 2024, the Complainant issued the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to issue her with a statutory redundancy payment. By the date of the hearing, the Respondent had issued a redundancy payment, however the Complainant maintained the present complaint, on the basis that the same was issued late and following numerous emails from the Complainant on the matter. By response, the Respondent submitted that the allegations in questions were not actionable under the impleaded legislation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 10th March 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued submissions in advance of the hearing. Given the nature of the complaint, no witness evidence was called by either party.

By submission, the Complainant stated that she did not receive a statutory notice payment for a period of approximately four months following her termination. The Complainant submitted that this delay was unreasonable, particularly in circumstances whereby she had to request the same on numerous occasions and had to refer the present complaint. The Complainant further raised issues regarding the general conduct of the Respondent, including their failure to provide a written statement and an inconsistency in the persons she corresponded with on their behalf.

By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received the correct statutory redundancy payment in respect of her former assignment. While they noted that the Complainant intended to contest the same in this forum, they submitted that he raised no issues in respect of the calculation of the same. They further submitted that the allegations raised by the Complainant are not actionable in the present  forum.

In the present case, the Complainant has alleged that while the Respondent issue a redundancy payment, they engaged in an unreasonable delay in administering the same. She further raised issues regarding the conduct of the Respondent in the course of their engagement.

In this regard, Section 39(15), as amended provides that,

“…any employee who is dissatisfied…with any decision of an employer under this Act may appeal to the Director General against the decision…”

In this respect, the relevant decision of the Respondent was that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on a certain start date, end date and average payment. While the Complainant raised numerous issues regarding the conduct of the Respondent in the process of making this decision, by submission she did not raise any issue in respect to the matters listed above. In such circumstances, I find that the Complainant’s appeal fails.

I  find that the Complainant’s appeal fails.

Redundancy, process, submissions.