Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  Mulvihill

Acolad Content Solutions Ireland Limited - Acolad

Representatives

Self-Represented

Ms Evi Xira , HR Business Partner

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-00074549-001

19/08/2025

The issue in contention concerns a Redundancy Pay dispute between a Senior Project Manager and a Content Solutions Company. The employment began on the 1st July 2015 and ended, by Redundancy, on the 2nd April 2025.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been approximately €37,000 per annum for a 40-hour week.

The Complainant was Self Represented. He gave a comprehensive Oral testimony supported by a detailed written Submission. In basic essence his complaint was that he had been subjected to a “sham” Redundancy Process bereft of any Proper Consultation and any realistic consideration of alternatives. The offer of a “Relocation” to India was quite frankly absurd. The Respondent decision was clearly taken well in advance of the “Consultation” meetings of the 25th March 2025 and the 2nd of April 2025.  The payment of the basic Statutory redundancy, capped at €600 x2 per week, was miserly and significantly out of keeping with “normal” Redundancy Ex Gratia top up payments made in the Irish Labour Market.

The treatment of his query in relation to the Respondent Employee Health Care policy was “Dismissive and Off Hand” particularly when he had made it known he had recently received a very worrying medical diagnosis. In addition, the Respondent had offered to assist with his Legal fees but had later resiled from this Commitment.

It was acknowledged that he had received his full Statutory Redundancy and all other financial benefits even if somewhat delayed in a detailed breakdown.

The Complainant relied heavily on ADJ-00062569 involving a close colleague who was also made Redundant. She had been awarded ,in addition to the Statutory Redundancy , a Compensation Sum of €10,000. A similar situation applied here and a similar award was due to the Complainant.

The Respondent was represented by Ms EX of Head Office HR. An Oral testimony was given supported by extensive copy e mail correspondence. Ms EX argued that a genuine Redundancy situation had arisen in the Respondent business. The Translation Market was constantly evolving and the business rationale for a Senior Project Manager based in Ireland had ceased to exist. The work was being transferred to India as part of a global business reorientation.

There was absolutely no negative connotation regarding the excellent work that had been done by the Complainant. It was a purely impersonal business decision.  The Complainant had been paid all his Statutory Benefits. The question of extra Top Up Ex Gratia payments  had not arisen in the very challenging Financial situation facing the Respondent.

The Health Benefits had a carry over period of some two weeks that the Complainant seemed to have missed. Legal fees did not arise as the process was all in keeping with the Statutory requirements of the Redundancy Acts.

3:1

Legal position - Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and Legal Precedents / Cross over with Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

Section 7 of the Act gives the basis for Redundancy

General right to redundancy payment.

7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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 for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that 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, or

(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,

Sub Section 7: 2 (a) & (b) clearly apply in this case. There was, on the sworn evidence of the Respondent, a genuine Redundancy.

However, all Legal precedents point to the need for a comprehensive and realistic Consultation process. The land mark case would be St Ledger v Frontline Distribution Ltd UD/56/1994.

In this case the Consultation process was perfunctory and barely adequate to satisfy the Act.

The case cited by the Complainant ADJ-00062569 highlighted a similar issue.

However the key issue then becomes the question of Redress .

3:2      Cross over with Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

The Redundancy Payments Act,1967 was set up to ensure that Workers were not subject to unnecessary Financial Hardship following the loss of an employment. The Payment of a statutory Redundancy Lump Sum was the vehicle chosen to do this. Once the Statutory Payment has been made ( as in this case) the 1967 Act is satisfied.

The challenge for the Complainant in this case is that Redress for say an Unfair Selection for Redundancy, requires , such as in ADJ-00062569, that the complaint be lodged primarily under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 or other possible Acts. ADJ-00062569 was referred under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977.

Regrettably for the Complainant no such referral under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 was formally lodged in writing with the WRC or advised to the Respondent.

3:3 Time Limits

The first Hearing of the case was on the 14th January 2026. This was 9 Months and 12 days since the ending of employment. Even if an Unfair Dismissal complaint had been lodged on this date it would still be in excess of the six month requirements of Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act,2015. An Appeal under Section 41(8) of that Act, for “exceptional circumstances” would still have been possible.

At the January 2026 Hearing the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant was Unrepresented .

3:4         Adjudication Conclusion

The Complaint was lodged with the WRC under the Redundancy Payments Act,1967. The requirements of the Act were satisfied. The Statutory Redundancy Payment was properly made.

The Complaint as referred is there fore legally “Moot” in the US legal sense. It, no longer, has any practical benefit to the Complainant.

In Adjudication terms the case has to be seen therefore as legally Not Properly Founded.

Redundancy, Unfair Dismissals Act.