ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053530
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Company |
Representatives | Self-represented |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065527-001 | 22/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00065527-002 | 22/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00065527-003 | 22/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065527-004 | 22/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2025 & 15/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearing on 29th January 2025 was adjourned at the request of the parties to allow for direct discussions between the parties. On 4th March 2025, the complainant withdrew complaints against the related company. On 25th August 2025, the complainant clarified to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that the complaint on redundancy (CA-00065527-002) had not been resolved against the respondent company and he wished to proceed with this complaint. The second hearing was online and was attended by the complainant. As the respondent company was dissolved post-merger with the related company, legal representatives attended the hearing on behalf of the related company. The legal representative on behalf of the related company raised a preliminary jurisdiction issue arising from an alleged ‘Compromise Agreement’. I requested the parties to make further submissions on this preliminary issue. I informed the parties that if I decided I had no jurisdiction, a decision would issue. If I decided I had jurisdiction, the hearing would be reconvened to hear the substantive redundancy complaint.
Background:
The complaint made is that the respondent company did not pay statutory redundancy to the complainant who alleges he was employed from December 2019 up to the date of the dissolution of the respondent company in September 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant alleges that he did not receive a redundancy payment having worked with the respondent company from 8th December 2019. In February 2024, he became aware that the company was sold. He made a complaint to the WRC in July 2024 naming the respondent company and the related company he understood it merged with. His complaint is against the respondent company that he was not paid statutory redundancy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent company did not attend on the second hearing date. Legal representatives of the related company which the respondent company merged with, made a submission in advance of the hearing and attended the hearing. The legal representative clarified at the hearing that the respondent company was dissolved post-merger with their company. It was submitted that as there was a ‘Compromise Agreement’ signed by the complainant, the Adjudication Officer did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint on redundancy. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00065527-002- Complaint Under Redundancy Payments Act It is common case if a ‘Compromise Agreement’ is relied upon that the issue to be decided is whether there was a genuine bargain to settle and/or an attempt to exclude or limit rights under statutory legislation. There is also a necessity to investigate whether the complainant was afforded due process and was not coerced into signing an agreement. Submissions were sought by the parties on the alleged ‘Compromise Agreement’ to assess the circumstances under which it was reached. Submissions were received by the related company into which the respondent company was dissolved attaching the ‘Compromise Agreement’. Context The contextual background is relevant to assess whether the compromise agreement reached was legally valid. A series of complaints against the respondent and related company were received and the initial hearing was held in January 2025. Representatives from both companies attended to respond to the complaints. The hearing was adjourned at the request of the parties to allow time for the parties to engage directly. At that time, all parties were aware that matters would either be resolved by agreement or would return for an adjudication decision. Having reviewed the ‘Compromise Agreement’ it is evident that the discussions culminated in a signed agreement. The complainant then withdrew his complaints against the related company. In August 2025, he proceeded with the redundancy complaint against the dissolved company (respondent in this case). When the case was re-convened on 15th October 2025, the related company relied on the ‘Compromise Agreement’ and submitted that the complainant had waived his rights to pursue a redundancy complaint. I reviewed the ‘Compromise Agreement’ to establish whether there was adequate consideration. I am satisfied that the signed agreement could be considered to contain an adequate settlement. On reviewing the settlement terms, it can only be deduced that the negotiations were meaningful, particularly as the complainant signed up to the terms. The complainant had an alternative, of allowing the complaints return for an adjudication decision, which he chose not to avail of. The ‘Compromise Agreement’ lists the various Acts released and discharged by the complainant including the Redundancy Payments Act. The agreement specifically refers to the respondent company which was acquired by way of share purchase. The agreement includes a clause on independent employment advice and a payment to the complainant by the related company to obtain this advice. I am satisfied that the complainant had free and informed consent along with professional/legal advice. The right to pursue statutory complaints is an important constitutional right. Therefore, a waiver of rights must be construed strictly against the party from whom it emanated. In this case, having attended the first adjudication hearing, the parties mutually decided on direct discussions. I am satisfied that the agreement was signed after a genuine bargain to settle by both parties. For the reasons outlined, I decide that the complainant has waived his rights by signing a ‘Compromise Agreement’ and consequently I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. As I have decided that a legally valid agreement was reached, and this contains a confidentiality clause, I decide that special circumstances exist to anonymise the parties in this decision. |
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.
CA-00065527-001- Complaint under Unfair Dismissals Act This complainant was withdrawn by the complainant. CA-00065527-002- Complaint under Redundancy Payments Act I decide that the complainant has waived his rights under the ‘Compromise Agreement’ and consequently I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. CA-00065527-003- Complaint under Minimum Notice This complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. CA-00065527-004- Complaint under Unfair Dismissals Act This complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. |
Dated: 3rd November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Redundancy, Waiver of Rights |