Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Donie  Foley

Kerry Creameries Ltd

Representatives

Anne Marie James Kirwan McKeown James LLP Solicitors

Ger Connolly Mason Hayes and Curran LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00061313-003

19/01/2024

On 19 January 2024, the Complainant submitted three complaints which augmented earlier complaints from 2022 and 2023 against Kerry Group PLC, amended on consent in November 2024.

1 CA-00061313-001   claim for unfair dismissal was withdrawn at hearing (remedy of compensation)

2 CA-00061313-002   claims for Victimisation / Employment Equality Act 1998 was withdrawn at hearing.

This left CA-61313-003   My Representative was not properly consulted in relation to a proposed collective redundancy which comes to hearing under Section 11 A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977.

The Respondent denies the circumstances amount to a Collective Redundancy.

The Complainant submitted the below mentioned narrative in CA-00061313-003

The complaint was headed:

My representative was not properly consulted in relation to a proposed collective redundancy which affected me.

Union members of SIPTU as representatives were not properly consulted in relation to the proposed collective redundancy. My employer felt and/or refused to fully engage in the redundancy process and due to the I /RC claims, we were forced to sign a waiver agreement that involved us withdrawing all claims previously lodged (narrative of the complaint)

Counsel outlined that the disputed redundancy had emerged as a direct retaliation to Mr Foleys complaints before the WRC when the complaint was placed at risk of redundancy on 3 rd. November 2023.

This most certainly amounted to a collective redundancy in the meaning of Section 6 (c)

At least 10% of the number of employees in an establishment normally employing at least 100 but less than 300 employees, where “establishment “is given its

S6 (3) meaning as an employer or a company or a subsidiary company or a company within a group of companies which can independently effect redundancies

Evidence of Mr Donie Foley, Complainant

The Complainant combined his full-time job as a Milk tank driver with his role as a dairy farmer. He attended Agricultural college post leaving cert and commenced as a General Operative with the Respondent business in April 1988 working until he was made redundant on 31 December 2023.

He was paid weekly, but did not have a statement of terms of employment. He told the hearing he was aware of his hourly rate of pay historically “through local vigilance” He had received double time for Sundays and undertook shift work.

He engaged in a clock in system.

In 1990, he moved to the Mill at Farran fore at Kerry Agribusiness. Here he began driving with his colleague, Séamus Cronin and obtained his truck licence. He worked in feed and began milk tank driving in 1992. He did not receive terms and conditions for his new   role as a driver.

He worked longer hours in 1992 and was paid overtime.

Mr Foley outlined that he was a relief/ holiday driver across south and north Kerry. Hours were not recorded, but he was paid weekly with travel expenses.

Mr foley confirmed that he was subsequently paid on the 2002 collective Agreement with a 2005/6 reference to 48 hrs.

Mr Foley witnessed redundancies before securing his permanency as a driver, without a break in service and without any corresponding notification of employment related documents. He had not received a staff handbook.

Mr Foley recalled the unfolding of the 2002 collective agreement through the then LRC, 66 hrs basic and 11 hrs work per day. He had been a shop steward and recalled being in the Great Southern Hotel early one morning, where the agreement referred to as the “Holy Grail “, the new agreement

 He understands that his future was secure through a permanent route in Dingle.

“It’s all in it! “

Reference to 48 hrs was to follow.

 He presumed he was linked to Kerry Agribusiness and was not aware he was employed by Kerry Creameries ltd.

He recalled service changes such as a digitalisation of tachographs in or around 2015/16, communicated by email, where breaks were deducted. The day was measured from

 “Key on to key off “.

 and the company “got away with it “lack of adherence to the 48 hrs limit.

Mr Foley learned of a preferential arrangement being offered to some salaried staff at Kerry Group in terms an extra 5 days, enhanced VHI and parental leave. He chased this with SIPTU, but the Labour Court determined that he was “hourly paid “ 

Mr Foley contended that he had been on salary from 1992.

He was aware that annualised hours were in practice, but he was harassed to place the tachograph at rest as his line manager told him “There was plenty time to take breaks “However, he couldn’t take breaks due to the 11-rest period. He had been in dispute from 2016. Mr Foley was aware of a helpful precedent on annualised hours in Charleville and as drivers were reducing in cadre, measures were put in place on revised gallonage.

Mr foley submitted that the 2005 agreement confirmed that standby did not constitute working time.

27 weeks at 66 hrs.

He was informed that any attempt to change salaries was deemed a cost increasing claim, which impeded progress. He had to await the completion of wage increases fixed by the Agreement before advancing his claim in 2021.

In addressing his lack of opportunity to get a solid 15-minute break, he recalled that from 2015 onwards, his Transport Manager, Mr A, not present as a witness for either party, put him under pressure to record breaks.

He exhibited an extract of 1 week but deferred to the company’s electronic records. Mr Foley confirmed that the respondent had wanted him to take breaks, but he never got in excess of 10 mins together and never the 30 minutes. He was not paid for additional hours worked. His home life suffered from these restrictions as he left home early and the enhanced hours meant that he missed social engagements and was frequently tired. He acknowledged that air con was a more recent addition in the truck.

He clarified that there was a local TOIL arrangement in response to the extended day, but no formal mechanism to go to things like the dentist. This remained unchanged up to his termination from the business.

As Mr Foley sought to further categorise his claims, Mr Ryan BL called for “precision “

Mr Foley outlined that he was not paid a standalone Sunday rate, and he had been informed that this was built into his weekly pay.

He was seeking payment for public holidays within the cognisable period.

He submitted that he was always in the truck and there were two matrices

1 put to rest

2 rest by default

He said he habitually highlighted that with his obligation to hook up tanker, wash the fittings, load up, sampling only 5 mins was available to avail of a break. He understood that breaks were exempt in the 2005 agreement, and he understood SI 817/2014 exempted rest breaks.

By 2022, he had obtained legal advice, and he stopped recording his breaks.

Mr foley recalled that new tankers with an upward adjustment of work output occurred during 2018. By May / June he was completing 6 loads over 3 days. He had not received any notification that his hours were increased.

He outlined a typical day from 7 am, driving, collection, sample / wash, factory visits, (2 hrs) withhold ups of 40 mins.

Mr Foley linked his claim for payment of wags to the excess hours he worked over and above 48 hrs and referred to the accountant’s report. Some ambiguity arose on the actual of quantum claimed and Mr Maier BL submitted that there had been an ongoing underpayment from 19 December 2022.

Mr Foley clarified his service as 4 April 1988 to 4 May 1992 without break in service. He accepted that he had been laid off during winter.

He said that he had already spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees and this was the

 “People’s Court “He requested a way back to work.

During cross examination, Mr Ryan acknowledged Mr Foleys extended tenure and familial link to the business. Mr Foley responded that he had a strong sense of injustice and mistreatment. He accepted the circumstances had deviated from a voluntary redundancy climate and said:

“We were fine for redundancy if it was put right “

He submitted that he was dissatisfied at being forced to withdraw the claims within this complaint and refused to sign a waiver.

He explained that the respondent refusal to include the lunch money in the calculation of redundancy was a deal breaker and the quantum offered was insufficient for his financial objectives.

He agreed that €209 k was the quantum rejected.

Mr Foley disagreed that the impasse related to the quantum, but the hours of work. He recalled attending driving safety training annually, where the lesson on “accident “told him “We were on our own “

If he had accepted settlement on offer, then the issue of time management and adequate rest periods would remain unresolved at 80 hrs instead of 48hrs by the respondent. He felt strongly that this issue had the potential to harm his family or other families.

In response to Mr Ryans question on payment of over time during early days at the factory and the Mill, Mr Foley agreed there was a time in lieu system.

Mr Foley confirmed that in or around 2021 he responded to an email for salaried staff on VHI benefits. He outlined that he made an application as salaried staff, but there was no provision for a cost increasing claim and he was forced to await the conclusion of the wage agreement.

In addressing the Grievance outcome letter of November 2021, Mr Foley placed the activity intensification to 2018, where driver numbers reduced where he worked 52 weeks of the year now with little time for breaks.

He denied this was an Industrial Relations dispute and explained his grievance as he was fed up being intimidated around breaks and taking breaks. He was informed that he should turn off the tachograph for his breaks. He understood he was to take breaks in the factory.

He stated that there was no way in the world that he worked under 48 hrs and on many days “he did not have a genuine break “outside of a 7–8-minute interval while pumps were fitted for washing.

Mr Foley disagreed with Mr Ryan when he recalled not being obliged to take breaks when he referenced a Mr Michael Pender letter dated 3 February 2025 to the Irish Co-op Association.

He was immune from disciplinary action because of the 48 hr regulations.

Mr Foley argued that he should be paid for Saturday and Sunday work without express provision in the Agreement.

He refuted any semblance of a genuine redundancy as while he had been offered a contractor role, he was the sitting driver, and he wished to remain.

Mr Foley gave minimal evidence on loss and mitigation. He earned approximately €5-10, 000 from his family farm. He is currently undertaking further training in human resources.

In redirect, Mr foley in commenting on the quantum he left behind, he said that he had seen drivers be given more than that amount. He had an issue being forced to drop these complaints. The redundancy did not incorporate lunch money in the calculation.

He reaffirmed working in excess of 48 hrs per weeks.

He drove c 300 -400 kms per day and in referring to the tachograph said it recorded that he couldn’t take a break.

He stated that salary was mentioned on pay slip.

He confirmed that he took an individual grievance to address hours and breaks through the IR pathway.

He said he was not offered new work from the company as contractors took the jobs, and he contended that the company just washed their hands of the breaks and 48 hrs issue.

In clarifications, Mr foley confirmed that he held a tachograph card, but did not have normal start and finish times.

He is a small shareholder in the Kerry group

He had not received a staff handbook but had undertaken induction and training in the tachograph. He was unable to recall when he ceased recording breaks via tachograph.

He maintained that the 2005 Agreement endured for 3 years. The Union had not submitted a clarification in LCR 22429 in 2021.

He had applied the lunch money in paying for his lunch at the factory.

He was not participant in any workplace accidents.

There was no local agreement on overtime.

He did not appeal the redundancy outside of attending the WRC in the aftermath of the 5 men protest in Tralee. There were no alternatives to redundancy discussed.

He contended that the Respondent had not addressed Consultation at the time of the declaration of redundancy and he had been directed to withdraw his claims before the WRC to receive the pro offered amount.

The Respondent has disputed the claim and denied that the circumstances of redundancy did not amount to the definition in Section 6 of the Act.

The Respondent runs a global dairy and food business. It is common case that the Complainant commenced work on 5 April 1988.

The Respondent gave a chronology on the evolution of directly employed milk tank drivers from over 100 c 2005 to zero in 2024.

The Respondent outlined that the Labour court had determined terms for redundancy for driver colleagues in 2009 LCR 19437. 6 weeks per year of service, inclusive of statutory lump sum payment.

The Respondent has outsourced its entire milk collection driver cadre to haulage companies. This plan originated over a number of years from 2009 -2020-2023 and was elevated to a decision prior to receipt of the complainants work based complaints in 2022.

The Respondent denied that this amounted to a Collective Redundancy as only 7 individuals were placed at risk of redundancy in November 2023. The minimum of 30 redundancies or more from a 300 or more base of employees was not reached. The Respondent had not notified the Minister.

The Consultation period was triggered with the Union on 26 October 2023 and out of respect to the complainant’s long tenure “the respondent did enter into a lengthy consultation period from 26 October 2023 to 1 December 2023 with the complainant made redundant on 31 December 2023 

Evidence of James OConnell. General Manager (Affirmation)

Mr OConnell is 1 of 5 Senior Managers and General Manager of the Agri business. He transitioned from the ground up to Head of Quality in 2017 to full time in the present role since January 2022.

Kerry Group employs 24,000 employees. However, the Company no longer employs drivers of milk collection. Historically, there were hundreds of staff drivers prior to the evolution of outsourcing from 2009.

The Company objective moved to a targeted 24/7 model from 2001, with flexibility provided by hauliers.

Costings were commenced in 2020, with flexibility for more contracted milk collection from March 2023. An earlier move in 2021 did not progress.

Monies to fund a redundancy were sanctioned from the Kerry Group.

On 16 August 2023 the company made the decision to outsource the milk collection service in full.

Mr OConnell was aware that Mr foley had made a protected disclosure, but termination of his employment was not linked to this.

On 26 October 2023 the news of redundancy for 20 people was shared with SIPTU, but the Union declined to attend a meeting.

On 3 November er 2023, the Union was notified at the Company office that following a review undertaken at the business, the model of milk driver was no longer viable at the business. This was a “commercial judgement” taken in the best interest of the company.

This kicked off the 30-day consultation for redundancy.

The Union wanted to know about allowances.

On 9 November 2023, Mr OConnell met with Mr Foley and his colleagues.

“I told them I would facilitate contractor’s roles post redundancy, outside of the redundancy process. I asked them to come to me directly within 7 days as routes were being carved out for tender and uptake “

The Union discussed the meal allowance.

Mr OConnell submitted that if Mr foley and his colleagues had expressed an interest in contractors, he would have facilitated that, if not likely their own routes, but not far away.

He recalled announcing live company vacancies open to them in

Factories

Stores

Fertiliser / feed

In cross examination, Mr Maier explored the entity Kerry Agri Business as part of Kerry Agri business Trading ltd. He explained that Kerry Dairy Holding IRL sits on top of the legal entities.

Mr Twomey ex operations and transport manager was no longer with the business.

Mr Dillane as Transport Co Ordinator came to give evidence.

He was unaware of just how many employees were associated with Kerry Creameries ltd.

There were 4 pillars.

Mr OConnell reaffirmed that the decision to outsource the milk tank drivers evolved from 2001 and had been followed by various redundancies.

He decided the redundancies of 2023, which were not limited to drivers, but had a 2022 gestation

He confirmed that the company had not presented a specific report to staff to justify redundancies. He simply read out the announcement and had not anticipated ending up at the WRC.

He denied this was a collective redundancy. It cost 1million euro.

Mr OConnell described the model of 24/7 deliver and collect milk via haulage contractors / owner derivers or sole traders through Service Level Agreement. The Company owns 60 tankers and routes are now optimised and efficient.

He knew that Mr Foley was refusing to record breaks but had not discussed this with him. He did not accept the pattern relied on by the complainant as “he could take his breaks when and where he wanted “He was not limited to farm or factory. The tachograph provided a log on, log off mechanism. d

In addressing the clams under Organisation of working Time Act. 1997, Mr OConnell relied on the collective agreement grounding Mr foleys employment.

He was aware that Mr Foley had raised the topic of his claim that he worked in excess of OWT in August 2023, but HR normally issue a written statement.

In clarification, Mr OConnell confirmed that the strike relied by the complainant on was a Protest.

He clarified  the Tachograph classification of “other work “

I asked Mr OConnell if the untapped ex-gratia redundancy quantum was still there, or whether it had been a one-way journey back to its source. He replied “It may not be one way “

He confirmed that the fleet of trucks operated by Mr foley and his colleagues had been sold.

He was not aware of a staff handbook.

Evidence of Ms Fiona OCarroll, Director of Human Resources

Ms O Carroll is HR Director in Kerry Dairy Ireland and Kerry Ingredients Irl ltd since 2013. Her career has spanned over 30 years in human resources.

The Human resource function has been restructured. Part of the HR    function has been disbanded in UK and Ireland. HR administration is provided from Kuala Lumpur with senior aspects retained

She reports directly to CEO.

Ms O Carroll recalled the 16 August 2023 meeting where a commercial decision was made by Mr OConnell to restructure more than 20 roles through redundancy. She agreed with the plan and confirmed that this conversation commenced in 2020.

There was to be a reduction of 7 employees in Agribusiness, the homogenous group of drivers (2 of whom rip)

And 5 employees across the greater business.

Ms O Carroll recalled Mr Foleys grievance submitted through the hub. It related to his being unable to take breaks.

She referred to the SIPTU generated letter of April 2022 where a company offer on annual leave and pay for the 7 drivers had been rejected in favour of awaiting the outcome of talks in Listowel.

1 a confirmation that contracted hours are in line with the average 48 hrs weekly in WTA/06/02, Collective Agreement.

2 hourly pays calculated on basic pay, sampling and gallonage allowances clarification.

3 clarifications on the hourly rate and its breakdown (what hours are flat rate, what (if any) hours are premium rate etc

4 Clarification on Sunday pay within the agreement.

5 compensations for drivers who worked over and above contracted hours

6 Agreement that working arrangements going forward will be 5 10 hr days in peak season with compensatory time off in off peak time. Compensation and overtime claimed.

Ms O Carroll confirmed that she had responded on 23 May 2023.

1 she made an error on standby time when she classed it as an exclusionary measurement

2 Annualised hours arrangements prevailed

3 Sunday addressed in the 2005 agreement

4 Rejected 5-day week

The announcement of redundancy followed in November, and a level of confusion followed over just who was representing the complainant. The first scheduled meeting of 31 October 2022 was not attended by SIPTU. Letters arrived from both Union and Solicitors.

The 3 rd. November meeting was introduced as an Individual consultation, but the 5 drivers came as a group and were represented by their Union. They asked to keep their roles, but were informed their jobs were gone.

It became about “figures “after that and “heated meetings “followed.

Offers were made on foot of LCR   19437 and the respondent responded to the Union on 13 December 2023 through Ms OCarroll

“…. we note your reference to balloting your members for industrial action. While this is a matter for your members, we believe it unnecessary. However, before doing so it is important that hey fully understand as outlined 8in our correspondence to them that all ex gratia terms currently on offer will be forfeited on 31 December 2023 if we do not receive the signed redundancy agreements on the date specified i.e. on or before 14 December 2023.These amount will not be re-instated as they are only available to us until that date .

Should this arise, your members will be paid their statutory redundancy and notice only. It is therefore important that they make this decision with this knowledge and with a full understanding of its consequences.”

Ms OCarroll outlined that the waiver sought in the Agreement on leaving was “standard for Kerry “Mr Foley and his colleagues did not sign the redundancy agreement, and a Trade Dispute followed.

She denied there was any issue with Mr Foleys complaint to the Inspectorate as collaboration had followed between HR and WRC “many times “.

During cross examination, Ms O Carroll worked with Mr Maier to delineate the emphasis placed on bringing together of Dairy and nutritional Agribusiness. she confirmed she was the most senior human resource manager and had been directly involved in the restructuring programme from August 16, 2023. There were 7 driver redundancies inclusive of the transport manager.

The issue in how milk collection was organised was under consideration since 2001. The final decision to exit milk collection was made on 16 August 2023 as one that was more cost effective in favour of external hauliers. Ms Carroll outlined that it was advantageous in terms of flexibility and cost and constituted an initiative engaged by all Dairy Processors over the past 10 years.

The 4 Pillars are not companies. There are 9 legal entities in Kerry dairy Ireland of which her employer Kerry Ingredients Irl ltd was a subsidiary.

In answer to who controlled OWT compliance, Ms OCarroll answered the Transport Manager, prior to his departure.

Contracts are now in place for all employees.

Ms OCarroll could not recall whether Mr foley had received his statement of terms and conditions but stated “I’m sure he got something “and she felt sure that his terms and conditions could have been updated at his request.

Ms O Carroll declared that Mr foley was an annualised hours employee paid the same throughout the year, similar to manufacturing at Charleville.

 The Agreements were not incorporated in a statement of terms and were expressed terms. The Union/ Management had not engaged further following the respondent letter of May 23, 2022.

Ms OCarroll clarified that “stand by “consisted of “waiting for milk to go in and out “and it was working time at 72 minutes.

Employees had access to “My Kerry “as an information tool.

Ms O Carroll had some knowledge of compulsory redundancies but there were not a high number at the business. She confirmed that Mr foley was offered the option of becoming a contractor during consultation. She recalled the 18 December 2023 letter of termination of employment on 29 December 2023.

Ms OCarroll wrote to SIPTU dated 5 January 2023 (sic)

“….. compulsory redundancies have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Despite Kerry complying with the terms of a previous Labour Court recommendation which resulted in your members being offered generous ex gratia redundancy payments way above the current Kerry Policy, we are aware that your members rejected this offer as they believe their current case before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) concerning working time are of greater value to the amount offered. These cases are assigned a hearing date of 31 January 2024 by the WRC but have since been cancelled. “

The Respondent recognised the complainants appointed Solicitors “to focus on the resolution of this claim “pre the protest in Tralee.

The Respondent had not hosted a localised procedural framework surrounding the myriads of claims from December 2022 as no request was made to process these complaints at base.

In clarifications, Ms Ocarroll confirmed that Sunday had not been recognised for pay purposes historically.

There was no push back from the Union on the error regarding the categorisation of stand by time in May 2022.

Pay slips were sent electronically and a 2009 staff handbook was available within the business. This was submitted to the WRC on 13 May 2025.

Ms O Carroll confirmed that a Protected Disclosure Policy was available at the business.

The alternatives to redundancy were set in the alternative roles discussed at the early meeting with the Union.

The business did not host a leaving party for Mr Foley or his colleagues.

I have been requested to make a decision on whether a contravention of Section 9 on the obligation on the employer to consult employee representatives in proposing to create collective redundancies.

My jurisdiction is drawn from Section 11 A Protection of Employment Act 1977.

Section 6 on Collective Redundancies provides

Meaning of collective redundancies.

6.— (1) For the purpose of this Act, "collective redundancies" means dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual concerned where in any period of 30 consecutive days the number of such dismissals is —

(a) at least 5 in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 50 employees,

(b) at least 10 in an establishment normally employing at least 50 but less than 100 employees,

(c) at least ten per cent. of the number of employees in an establishment normally employing at least 100 but less than 300 employees, and

(d) at least 30 in an establishment normally employing 300 or more employees.

(2) For the purpose of calculating the number of redundancies where the number of dismissals is at least 10 in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 100 employees, terminations of a contract of employment which occur to the individual workers concerned shall be assimilated to redundancies provided there are at least 5 redundancies.

(3) In this section "establishment" means an employer or a company or a subsidiary company or a company within a group of companies which can independently effect redundancies.

On consideration of the evidence, I heard Mr foley outline that he was disregarded at the conclusion of his employment.

I did not have the benefit of hearing from the Union Official involved for the complainant. It is of note that the Complainants legal reps wrote to the Company on November 30, 2023, seeking terms for the declared redundancy.

The complainant submitted that the complainant was denied consultation from his “establishment “of Kerry creameries ltd and this satisfied the meaning of a collective redundancy.

The Respondent denied that the redundancy constituted a collective redundancy.

In a post hearing submission, Counsel for the Complainant raised the recent CJEU USDAW v WW Realisation 1 ltd C 80/14 at the fifth chamber CJEU as clarifying the term establishment as autonomous unit of which Kerry creameries could be correctly recognised as an establishment.

I did not receive a responding submission to this from the respondent.

I have considered Mr O’Connell’s evidence where he was unsure just how many employees comprised Kerry Creameries ltd. I found Ms O’Carroll more succinct on this topic when she described:

. There are 9 legal entities in Kerry dairy Ireland of which her employer Kerry Ingredients Irl ltd was a subsidiary.

I read the Woolworth case and see that it was remitted back to the Court of Appeal UK. CJEU stated that if a company has several entities, then establishment is the entity to which those made redundant were assigned to carry out their duties. It is not mandatory that the entity have an autonomous management power to affect redundancies.

In that case 4500 employees based in shops of less than 20 employees had been denied a protective payment on consultation prior to widespread redundancies in insolvency.

For my part, I revert to the CFO, Mr Chutes letter to the WRC dated 26 November 2024. Both Parties accepted the contents of this letter as a way forward in agreeing the legal entity, which was described as Kerry creameries ltd, part of the larger Kerry Dairy Ireland Business of 1,500 employees, 40 of whom were Agribusiness. Kerry Co – operative Creameries is currently engaged in a takeover of Kerry Dairy Ireland. The letter, which went undisputed placed Kerry Group Services ltd as the universal paymaster of all employees.

For my part and in drawing from Debenhams Retail Ireland ltd (in liquidation) and Jane Crowe [2025] IEHC] 14 where Barr J was influenced by the organisation knowledge of imminent redundancies in setting the time clock for consultation in collective redundancy much earlier than the union contended on 14 April 2020.

The law has expanded on this topic Employment Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous provisions and companies’ amendment Act 2024.

I can see that this claim has come forward as a disputed redundancy which I will address in ADJ  50360. However, the circumstances are distinct from the UK Woolworths case in Administration and Crowe, in liquidation.

Mr Chute gave an undertaking that Kerry Dairy Ireland would honour any award made at WRC.

I cannot establish that Mr Foley as one of 7 certain redundancies which occurred on 31 December 2023 was dismissed as part of a Collective Redundancy as provided for in Section 6 of that Act.

I accept that there were others placed at risk of redundancy in November 2023, but I have been provided with 7 milk tank drivers names whose employment ended in redundancy on 31 December 2023, 2 have passed away, 2 have settled their cases and 3 remain in these decisions.

I have not been able to apply the meaning of a collective redundancy to Mr Foley as the number is insufficient for that purpose.

I have found the claim is not well founded. The Parties will recall the triggering of the bid to consult occurred in October 2023 when both the Union and Legal Reps were active in these cases.

Nobody called this a Collective Redundancy and sought further protections before mid-January 2024.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 11 A of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with section 6 and 9 under that Act.

I find that the evidence adduced in addition to the written assurances provided by Kerry Dairy Ireland/ Kerry creameries ltd does not meet the test for meaning of Collective Redundancy in accordance with Section 6 of the Act

Collective Redundancy -Consultation