Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Government Minister

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00003911

05/03/2025

The dispute concerns the treatment of an enhanced (ex-gratia) redundancy payment following the cessation of employment of the Worker consequent upon the election of the Member of Parliament they advised to another parliament headquartered outside of the Republic of Ireland.

It is common case between the parties that the Worker’s role within the houses of parliament based in the Republic of Ireland was genuinely redundant and that the Worker received full statutory redundancy entitlements in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Worker immediately entered employment in another parliament outside of Ireland advising the same Member of Parliament they had advised in Ireland, with no break in earnings, and no enhanced redundancy payment was made at the point of redundancy.

The dispute concerns whether, in these circumstances, the Worker was entitled to payment of an enhanced redundancy sum at the point of redundancy in the same way they would have been if the Member of Parliament had lost their seat at an election or otherwise ceased working.

The Worker submits that the redundancy of the parliamentary role should be treated in the same manner as redundancies arising from the loss of a Member of Parliament’s seat. In such circumstances, enhanced redundancy payments have customarily been paid. The Worker should not be treated less favourably solely because the Member of Parliament they advised was elected to alternative public office. Accordingly, the Worker contends that the enhanced redundancy payment should have been paid at the point the Irish parliamentary role ceased.

The Employer stated that enhanced redundancy payments are discretionary and ex-gratia in nature. Their purpose is to compensate for actual financial loss, employment disruption and to reflect the vagaries of political life.

Where an adviser remains in continuous employment with no loss of earnings, payment of an enhanced redundancy sum is neither justified nor appropriate. Payment of such sums must also be considered in the context of the proper use of public funds.

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

I accept firstly that the Worker’s role in the Irish houses of Parliament was genuinely redundant and that statutory redundancy appropriately recognises the legal termination of that employment. I further note that enhanced redundancy differs fundamentally from statutory redundancy. While discretionary and non-contractual, it is generally intended to compensate workers for the effects of redundancy, including loss of income, insecurity, and disruption arising from the termination of employment.

Given the Worker’s immediate re-employment with no break in earnings or period of unemployment, I consider that payment of the enhanced redundancy at that time would not have fulfilled the compensatory purpose for which such payments exist.

On the other hand, I am of the view that permanently extinguishing the entitlement because of immediate re-employment would be disproportionate and could produce inequitable outcomes if the adviser subsequently experiences genuine employment loss.

For these reasons, I recommend that the enhanced redundancy entitlement be recognised and calculated as of the date the parliamentary role in the Republic of Ireland became redundant, but that the payment be frozen and only becomes payable if and when the Member of Parliament, who the Worker advises, ceases to be a member of the new parliament to which they were elected in 2024, provided that:

(i)                  the Worker does not immediately take up employment advising any other Irish member of the parliament in the parliament where they are currently working in outside of Ireland.

(ii)                 the reason for the cessation is not the result of their election to the houses of parliament in the Republic of Ireland. If the Member of Parliament they are currently advising does in fact return to the houses of parliament in the Republic of Ireland following an election, then the Worker’s accrued entitlement will be unfrozen. This now frozen entitlement will be fully reckonable in respect of any future enhanced redundancy payment to which they may become entitled. For the avoidance of doubt, no enhanced redundancy entitlement accrues in respect of service in another parliament outside of the Republic of Ireland.

This proposed approach ensures that the enhanced redundancy serves its intended purpose of compensating for genuine loss, while avoiding windfall payments or duplication of public funds during periods in which the Worker continues in employment.