Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Political Party

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

Jack Lundy Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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 - 00005877

15/12/2025

The Worker was employed from 1981 and, following arrangements agreed in 1997 concerning staff employed under the Houses of Parliament’s Scheme for Secretarial Assistance, retained her status as a permanent "Red Circled" employee.

The parties agreed that, unlike employees engaged on contracts that lasted for the duration of a parliament’s lifetime, “Red Circled” employees retained an ongoing employment relationship with their respective political parties.

The complaint concerns the Employer's refusal to make a statutory redundancy payment to the Worker when she accepted the Voluntary Early Retirement/Severance ("VER") package following the 2024 General Election. The Worker confirmed at hearing that her claim relates solely to statutory redundancy and not to pension or any other issue. The parties further confirmed that the internal grievance procedure had been exhausted before the matter was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Employer stated that no entitlement to statutory redundancy arose because the Worker was not dismissed, her employment continued to exist and there remained a continuing obligation arising from her “Red Circled” status to provide employment after the election. The Employer contends that the Worker voluntarily availed of VER and that suitable alternative employment would have been available through reassignment to another member or to party duties.

The Worker stated that she was treated less favourably than other “Red Circled” employees who, on previous occasions, received statutory redundancy in addition to VER. She asserted that the move of the office of the politician for whom she worked to a different geographical location meant that her role had effectively ceased and that she should have received treatment equivalent to that afforded to other employees in comparable circumstances. She also highlighted the case of a comparator employee who received statutory redundancy. She also stated that any work that would have been offered to her after the election in 2024 would not have been suitable given her skillset.

The Employer stated that no entitlement to statutory redundancy arose because the Worker was not dismissed, her employment continued to exist and there remained a continuing obligation arising from her “Red Circled” status to provide employment after the election. The Employer asserted that the Worker voluntarily availed of VER and that suitable alternative employment would have been available through reassignment to another member or to party duties.

Having carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the central issue is whether the Worker's circumstances gave rise to a redundancy situation.

I accept that the Worker had a long and distinguished record of service and that she genuinely believed that the position she occupied with the politician she was working for prior to the election in 2024 was coming to an end. However, there was no suggestion that her employment with the Employer would end following the election.

Of particular significance is the Worker's “Red Circled” status. The very purpose of the arrangements established in 1997 was to preserve permanent employment for those employees who elected not to accept the buy-out arrangements. As a consequence, “Red Circled” employees occupied a materially different position from employees engaged on fixed-term parliamentary contracts.

I accept the Employer's submission that, notwithstanding the election of the politician for whom she worked to a different house of parliament and the relocation of his office, the Worker would not have lost her employment. Rather, she would have been reassigned, as had occurred on previous occasions throughout her career when members retired, lost seats or changed roles. The Employer remained obliged to find work for a “Red Circled” employee.

I further accept the Employer's contention that continuing employment opportunities existed. While the Worker did not regard certain potential assignments as attractive or practical, the existence of employment opportunities is fundamentally different from the absence of work.

I also noted that the Worker relied heavily upon the treatment of a comparator who received statutory redundancy. Even if I accept that the comparator did receive statutory redundancy, I am satisfied that the comparator's circumstances were materially distinguishable from those of the Worker.

Specifically, the comparator worked for an Independent member of the Houses of Parliament rather than within the structure of a political party. In addition, the politician concerned resigned during the currency of a parliamentary term rather than following a general election. I accept the Employer's submission that, in those circumstances, there may not have been any suitable vacancies or reassignment opportunities available because the resignation occurred mid-term, after staffing allocations had already been established. By contrast, the Worker's circumstances arose following a general election when the Employer remained under an obligation to continue employing its Red Circle employees and to provide work for them.

I also attach significant weight to the fact that the Worker voluntarily applied for and accepted the VER package. This does not support a conclusion that she was dismissed. The Employer's position throughout was that the Worker's employment would continue and that alternative work would be found for her.

The concept of statutory redundancy is premised upon the occurrence of a dismissal arising from redundancy. In the present case I am not satisfied that there was any dismissal. Rather, I noted that the Worker chose to avail of VER notwithstanding that continuing employment would have remained available to her because of her “Red Circled” status.

I have also considered the Worker's argument that statutory redundancy had been paid to other “Red Circled” employees in earlier years. However, those instances arose in particular circumstances involving restructuring and specific sanction arrangements. The existence of those earlier arrangements does not establish that a redundancy situation existed in the Worker's case.