ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055646
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Derek Canning | HCL Ireland Information Systems Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Kathryn O'Lone of Employers Federation |
Complaint
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00067561-001 | 21/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/03/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act,1977 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Affirmation or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.
No issue regarding confidentiality arose.
Company Name and Address
This was clarified at the start of the Hearing to be HCL Ireland Information Systems Limited at C/O TMF Group Ground Floor, Two Dockland Central, Guild Steet, North Dock, Dublin 1
Background:
The Complainant alleged that his Representative or himself had not been properly consulted in relation to a Collective Redundancy which effected him. The Employment began on the 21st December 2022 and ended on the 1st July 2024. The rate of pay was €6,637 per month for a 40-hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave a substantial Oral testimony supported by a Written Submission. He alleged that he had been made Redundant in complete variance with Proper Redundancy Procedures. Furthermore the Respondent was not being factually correct as regards the number of Indian Nationals retained. It was an Indian owned Company and it appeared that Irish/UK & EU staff had been let go but Indian Nationals kept. The Respondent had promised him that if an EAP Contract finished he would be “kept on the Bench” on full salary until a new EAP Contract became available. This promise had been reneged upon. Accepting that the Protection of Employment Act 1977 applied to Collective Redundancies he maintained that as all his colleagues had been allegedly made redundant with him it qualified as a Collective Redundancy. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was represented by Ms O’Lone of the Employers Federation. She was supported by Company Managers. In essence the Respondent Argument was that the Protection of Employment Act ,1977 Act, (Section 6 specifying qualifying Number of Employees) under which the complaint was being brought, could not apply to the Complainant. The Respondent had some 260 Employees in the Republic of Ireland giving a qualifying number of 26 employees if such a Collective Redundancy arose. Even if allowing for using the Project Team on which the Complaint had been deployed the minimum number would have been 5 employees. Only 4 Employees were put at risk of Redundancy – one was redeployed leaving 3 actually redundant. The Respondent had engaged extensively with the Complainant including a Final Appeal (30th July 2024) in a process that lasted more than 30 days, a requirement of the Act, if it had applied. The Appeal Decision was attached in written evidence. The extensive consultation was best HR practice. Case law to support the Respondent case was attached in particular USDAW & Wilson [2015] EUECJ C-80/14 which was cited to support the Argument that only Redundancies in one Legal jurisdiction (in this case the RoI) could be relied upon. Redundancies in the UK could not be considered.
|
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 The Legal position - The Protection of Employment Act 1977 The Protection of Employment Act 1977 is a piece of legislation designed to offer protection to employees who may, unfortunately, be involved in large scale losses of employment , large factory closures etc. It is not designed for the addressing of individual or very small-scale job losses. The Respondent, in this case, quoted extensively from the Act to sustain this position. The Complainant, who was not legally represented, tacitly accepted this situation. He referred to what he termed were serious Ambiguities / Confusions in the WRC website portal, especially for those, such as himself, not well versed in Employmet Law. The Respondent indicated that they were present at the Hearing to address the specific complaint presented and were not in a position to agree to any amendments/changes in Acts being relied upon, that might allow the Redundancy complaint to proceed under other legislation. Accordingly, the Complaint, involving as it did, at a most generous interpretation, less than five employees, has to be deemed legally not Well Founded. The Adjudication Officer referenced the necessary time limits on other pieces of relevant Legislation that the Complainant might, having taken appropriate advice, consider. 3:2 Adjudication Conclusion The complaint has to be deemed Not Well Founded. It fails. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
CA: 00067561-001
The Complaint is not legally Well Founded.
It has to be deemed, under the Law as presented in the complaint, a failure.
Dated: 02/05/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Redundancy, Protection of Employment Act,1977 |