Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Employee made Redundant whilst on Maternity Leave
ADJ-00024224
The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent in February 2017.
She and her co-workers received an email on the 27th March from the Respondent stating that it had been unsuccessful in its bid to renew a cleaning contract it had with the secondary school in which she worked. The contract was due to terminate on the 29th March. The email stated that the transfer of undertakings regulations would apply and that her contact details would be forwarded to the new contractor. She turned up at the workplace on the 29th March at 16:00, but was told at 18:00 that the new employers would not apply the TUPE regulations.
The Complainant went on maternity leave on 14th April. This was due to terminate 14th October 2019. Her employer made her redundant on 18th April while she was still on maternity leave. The Respondent confirmed that his company lost the contract to clean the school in question.
Two days before the expiration of the contract he was told by the new contractor that it would not accept a transfer of his employees to carry out the new contract. He emailed the Complainant on 15th April advising her that she was being made redundant and the basis on which she would receive a redundancy payment of €1080.00 and payment in lieu of notice of €432.00; a total of €1512.00. This was followed by a letter on 18th April confirming those details. The employment then ceased.
This is a complaint under the Maternity Protection Act 1994. This Act is a measure to protect women who are on maternity leave against a number of possible detriments, the most important of which is the loss of their employment while on this period of protected leave. There is little doubt that this is what happened here.
The Complainant’s evidence was her maternity leave began on 14th April 2019 some two weeks after the Respondent lost the contract which has given rise to the claim.
The Respondent had a fairly vague expectation which he communicated to his own employees and to the company which successfully tendered for the contract that the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employees (TUPE) regulations would apply. This is not the first case in which such a presumption was made.
It was noted by the Adjudication Officer that it seemed remarkable that an employer with no legal qualifications would proceed to pronounce on the applicable law, and without taking prior legal advice in an area of law acknowledged even by professional practitioners to be complex. Should an employer proceed to act on the basis of this presumption, this brings then into very hazardous territory.
However, having discovered that the new contractor was not similarly minded, he proceeded on a different tack, and now accepting that the Complainant remained an employee made her redundant. He did so the day after she commenced her maternity leave.
It was decided that the purported redundancy is void. The Complainant continues to be and remains an employee of the Respondent, and it is ordered that she be facilitated with a return to work with effect from the conclusion of her maternity leave.
On the basis that she retains the sum of already paid by way of a purported redundancy and notice payment of €1512.00, the Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant €2808.00, the combined total of which is compensation for the breach of her rights under the legislation and not subject to taxation or other deductions.
Complainant successful and awarded monies for the upset caused
ADJ – 00018449
The Complainant commenced employment on 22nd November 2017 and his employment ceased on 3rd October 2018. The employer submitted that his employment was terminated because of downsizing in the organisation and this also affected other employees.
The worker detailed that he was engaged in a contract whereby the employer did not give him any guarantee of hours. He made a complaint about tasks he was asked to do while working at a client site during the middle of 2018. He was moved to another site and received limited hours thereafter.
It was stated that he found out through a letter that there was no more work for him that and that no appropriate procedure applied to the termination of his employment.
The employer disputed that the worker had been treated unfairly. It was outlined that his employment was terminated due to a downsizing exercise and thus redundancy was the reason for the termination. The worker did raise an issue verbally around May/June 2018 but did not submit anything in writing and continued to carry out his duties. Others were also impacted by the downsizing exercise.
It would appear that the employer was going through a downsizing exercise. It was unclear from the evidence what criteria was applied with regard to who was selected for redundancy. The worker found out through a letter in the post that his position had been terminated, which was inappropriate.
This complaint relates to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the worker was awarded €850 for the upset caused and the absence of any evidence of procedure in the termination of his employment.
ADJ-00024224
The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent in February 2017.
She and her co-workers received an email on the 27th March from the Respondent stating that it had been unsuccessful in its bid to renew a cleaning contract it had with the secondary school in which she worked. The contract was due to terminate on the 29th March. The email stated that the transfer of undertakings regulations would apply and that her contact details would be forwarded to the new contractor. She turned up at the workplace on the 29th March at 16:00, but was told at 18:00 that the new employers would not apply the TUPE regulations.
The Complainant went on maternity leave on 14th April. This was due to terminate 14th October 2019. Her employer made her redundant on 18th April while she was still on maternity leave. The Respondent confirmed that his company lost the contract to clean the school in question.
Two days before the expiration of the contract he was told by the new contractor that it would not accept a transfer of his employees to carry out the new contract. He emailed the Complainant on 15th April advising her that she was being made redundant and the basis on which she would receive a redundancy payment of €1080.00 and payment in lieu of notice of €432.00; a total of €1512.00. This was followed by a letter on 18th April confirming those details. The employment then ceased.
This is a complaint under the Maternity Protection Act 1994. This Act is a measure to protect women who are on maternity leave against a number of possible detriments, the most important of which is the loss of their employment while on this period of protected leave. There is little doubt that this is what happened here.
The Complainant’s evidence was her maternity leave began on 14th April 2019 some two weeks after the Respondent lost the contract which has given rise to the claim.
The Respondent had a fairly vague expectation which he communicated to his own employees and to the company which successfully tendered for the contract that the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employees (TUPE) regulations would apply. This is not the first case in which such a presumption was made.
It was noted by the Adjudication Officer that it seemed remarkable that an employer with no legal qualifications would proceed to pronounce on the applicable law, and without taking prior legal advice in an area of law acknowledged even by professional practitioners to be complex. Should an employer proceed to act on the basis of this presumption, this brings then into very hazardous territory.
However, having discovered that the new contractor was not similarly minded, he proceeded on a different tack, and now accepting that the Complainant remained an employee made her redundant. He did so the day after she commenced her maternity leave.
It was decided that the purported redundancy is void. The Complainant continues to be and remains an employee of the Respondent, and it is ordered that she be facilitated with a return to work with effect from the conclusion of her maternity leave.
On the basis that she retains the sum of already paid by way of a purported redundancy and notice payment of €1512.00, the Respondent is ordered to pay the Complainant €2808.00, the combined total of which is compensation for the breach of her rights under the legislation and not subject to taxation or other deductions.
Complainant successful and awarded monies for the upset caused
ADJ – 00018449
The Complainant commenced employment on 22nd November 2017 and his employment ceased on 3rd October 2018. The employer submitted that his employment was terminated because of downsizing in the organisation and this also affected other employees.
The worker detailed that he was engaged in a contract whereby the employer did not give him any guarantee of hours. He made a complaint about tasks he was asked to do while working at a client site during the middle of 2018. He was moved to another site and received limited hours thereafter.
It was stated that he found out through a letter that there was no more work for him that and that no appropriate procedure applied to the termination of his employment.
The employer disputed that the worker had been treated unfairly. It was outlined that his employment was terminated due to a downsizing exercise and thus redundancy was the reason for the termination. The worker did raise an issue verbally around May/June 2018 but did not submit anything in writing and continued to carry out his duties. Others were also impacted by the downsizing exercise.
It would appear that the employer was going through a downsizing exercise. It was unclear from the evidence what criteria was applied with regard to who was selected for redundancy. The worker found out through a letter in the post that his position had been terminated, which was inappropriate.
This complaint relates to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and the worker was awarded €850 for the upset caused and the absence of any evidence of procedure in the termination of his employment.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
