Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Reuben  Agbonlahor

SFDC Ireland Limited

Representatives

Self

Zelda Cunningham, Corporate Counsel

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069294-001

14/02/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00069294-002

14/02/2025

The Complainant was employed as an apprentice under a contract of employment which commenced on 01/02/2023 and ended on 31/01/2025.  He was paid €2,333 gross per month.  He submitted his complaints to the WRC on 14/02/2024.  The Respondent denies both claims and submits that the Complainant was dismissed when his contract reached its end date.  The redundancy claim fails because there was no redundancy.

Evidence – The Complainant:

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation.  He submits that he was entitled to a redundancy payment when his employment ceased on 31/01/2025.  He believes that having worked for two years for the Respondent he should be entitled to a redundancy payment.  The Complainant did request a redundancy payment from the Respondent but this was refused.

In relation to his complaint of unfair dismissal the Complainant gave evidence that his role still exists and he was let go due to lay offs as the Respondent was looking at cost savings.  The Complainant believes that he was not doing an apprenticeship role as he was assigned other work and by the time this contract came to an end he was no longer an apprentice.    The Complainant submits that he was given the impression that his employment would continue after the contract ended.  This happens to most apprentices.

In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer in relation to his efforts to mitigate his loss, the Complainant confirmed that he started an internship in March 2025 and this is unpaid.  He has made many applications for employment and attended about 7 – 8 interviews.   The Complainant confirmed that he did not submit any evidence of his attempts to mitigate his loss and none were opened at the hearing.

Cross examination – the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Ms Cunningham on behalf of the Respondent.  It was put to the Complainant that his evidence was that the role he had still exists in the company and he agreed that was the case.  

The Complainant was asked if he recalled his contract of employment and he confirmed that he did. He agreed that this was signed by him and that the status of the contract was Fixed-Term.  He also agreed that the contract said that his role would be Product Analyst Apprentice.  The Complainant also agreed that he was reporting to Mr Shane Franklin, Program Manager, Future Pathways.

The Complainant also agreed that as part of his contract he was attending a third level education course.  It was put to the Complainant that at no stage was he offered or given the impression that he would become a permanent employee.  The Complainant stated that he thought he was guaranteed a permanent role.  He stated that he was told that he was being let go due to headcount reasons.  It was put to the Complainant that his contract of employment specifies the dates of his employment and in that context the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act does not apply.  The Complainant stated that he got advice that the Act did apply.

In his closing remarks the Complainant stated that at no point did he believe he was guaranteed a permanent role.  He was not an apprentice in reality and he was let go from a role that was not an apprenticeship role. 

Evidence – Mr Shane Franklin:

Mr Shane Franklin, Program Manager, Future Pathways EMEA gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.  He stated that he is in this role for five years.  He works with the apprentices through coaching and he also works with managers in relation to their involvement in the apprentice programme.  Mr Franklin gave evidence that in the Irish context the programme is designed for people aged 18 – 24 who do not have a formal qualification.  The objective of the programme is to assist them to obtain a qualification.  This is done with the assistance of an external accredited training/educational provider.  The apprentices attend college for the first six months and then weekly after that. 

Mr Franklin outlined the difference between a permanent employee and an apprentice.  The apprentice is on a fixed-term contract and there is no guarantee of a permanent role.  For permanent employees there is no end date on their contract.  Mr Franklin gave evidence that between 2023 and 2025 there were 22 apprentices hired by the Respondent in Ireland.  Of those 11 are currently on the programme; 5 have been offered permanent roles and 5 completed the programme but were not offered permanent roles.  One apprentice resigned before completing the programme.

Mr Franklin gave details of his involvement with the Complainant.  He would have met him at the interview stage and also during his two weeks of on-boarding along with 11 other apprentices.  He linked with the Complainant on a quarterly basis.

Mr Franklin confirmed that at no stage was it suggested to the Complainant that he would be offered a permanent role.  He stated that apprentices do have the expectation of converting to a permanent employee but this is never guaranteed.  Mr Franklin confirmed that the Complainant was told about two months in advance that his contract would be ending as per the provisions in his contract.  He advised the Complainant to prepare his CV and offered to assist him in any way possible.  The Complainant did not take up this offer.  He was also offered the same assistance with the Respondent’s training provider.  Mr Franklin confirmed that there were a number of apprentices who did not become permanent employees.

Cross examination Mr Shane Franklin:

The Complainant was offered the opportunity to cross examine Mr Franklin but he confirmed that he did not have any questions for him.

Closing submission:

Ms Cunningham made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  She noted that Section 2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act expressly states that the provisions of the Act do not apply when an employee is working under a fixed-term contract and the dismissal occurs due to the ending of that contract.   In addition to this the Complainant’s contract of employment specifically noted that “the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 shall not apply to the termination of the apprenticeship where termination occurs within either the first nine months of the apprenticeship or within one month following the completion of the apprenticeship”.  It is clear that the Complainant is not entitled to bring a claim under the Act.

While the Respondent was not required it did provide the Complainant was advised of the reasons for the non-renewal of his contract which were that there was no available role for him due to the changing business needs and the lack of headcount in the business area.  

The Complainant did have a contract of employment which had an exclusion clause and also had an end date.  His Complainant fails on the basis of the contract.

The Respondent noted that the Complainant was asked by them on 16/12/2025 to provide details of his attempts to mitigate his loss and to provide copies of all applications and responses received along with details of any alternative employment undertaken since the termination of his employment.  The Complainant provided no evidence or any documentation.

In relation to the complaint seeking a redundancy payment the Redundancy Payment Acts sets out the circumstances in which a redundancy payment applies.  In relation to the Complainant he was employed as an apprentice and Section 7 (4) of the Act states “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an employee who has been serving a period of apprenticeship training with an employer under an apprenticeship agreement is dismissed within one month after the end of that period, that employee shall not, by reason of that dismissal, be entitled to a redundancy payment”.

There is no ambiguity in relation to the fact that the Complainant was an apprentice.  The role is still there and the Complainant acknowledges that the role is still there.  The Act as quoted specifically excludes the Complainant from a redundancy payment.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant raised some issues for the first time during the hearing.  The Respondent is somewhat prejudiced by not having notice of these in advance.

CA-00069294-001:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The Complainant is seeking a redundancy payment.

The Law:

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to –

(a)    The fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b)    The fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish.

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained”.

Redundancy occurs where an employee’s position ceases to exist, and the employee is not replaced.  Any employee aged 16 or over with 104 weeks’ continuous service with an employer is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in this situation.  In this case it is not disputed that the Complainant had a fixed term contract of employment which expired on 31/01/2025. 

The ending of the Complainant’s contract of employment does not meet the definition of redundancy as outlined above.   I am also satisfied that the failure to convert the Complainant’s fixed-term contract to a permanent contract does not meet the definition of redundancy.

Having considered the evidence and circumstances in the context of the definitions outlined in the Act I find that the Complainant was not dismissed by reason of redundancy and is therefore not entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum. 

CA-00069294-002:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The Law:

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, in relevant part, states as follows:

(1)                “In this Act –

“dismissal” in relation to an employee means – (a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee, (b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer, or (c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose;”

Section 2 (Exclusions)

“This Act shall not apply in relation to-

(a)    …

(b)    Dismissal where the employment was under a contract of employment for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making incapable of precise ascertainment) and the dismissal consisted only of the expiry of the term without its being renewed under the said contract or the cesser of the purpose and the contract is in writing, was signed by or on behalf of the employer and the employee and provides that this Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry of the aforesaid”.

As the Adjudication Officer I am obliged to establish if Section 1(b) of the Act of 1977 operates to validate this complaint or alternatively if Section 2 (a) applies.

Having reviewed the contract of employment I am satisfied that this contract outlines the commencement date as 01/02/2023 and the end date as 31/01/2025.  The contract, signed by both parties, also states, “The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 – 2015 shall not apply to the Apprenticeship where termination occurs within nine months of the Apprenticeship, or within one month following completion of the Apprenticeship”.

CA-00069294-001:  I have decided that the Complainant is not entitled to a redundancy payment and therefore this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00069294-002:  I have decided that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed and therefore this complaint is not well founded.

Redundancy payment.  Unfair dismissal.  Apprentice.