Case Number: ADJ-00000152. Workplace Relations Commission

• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Docket Number: ADJ-00000152
• Date: 23 March 2016
• Parties: Workers (6) v Grower of Agricultural Products

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000152

Complaints for Resolution:

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-00000213-001	13/10/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00000214-001	13/10/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00000215-001	13/10/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00000216-001	13/10/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00000217-001	13/10/2015
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00000218-001	13/10/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

The six complainants referred complaints to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 13^th October 2015. The complaints are made pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and seek redress under the Redundancy Payment Acts. The complainants are agricultural workers and the respondent is a grower of agricultural products.

Attendance at Hearing:

At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the adjudication hearing and having been satisfied of this, I proceeded with the adjudication in the respondent’s absence. The six complainants attended and were represented by solicitor.

Complainants’ Submission and Presentation:

The six complainants all worked as agricultural workers with the same respondent. They commenced employment on different dates between the years of 2004 and 2013. They provided to the adjudication documentary evidence of their respective start dates. The complainants were employed under the same terms and conditions. They were paid €390 per week and worked 45 hours per week. The complainants received correspondence from the respondent dated the 11th November 2014 and the 15th June 2015 regarding changes to their hours of work.On the 3rd September 2015, the respondent issued correspondence to each complainant stating that their employment would end on the 17^th September 2015. The letters refer to a downturn in the respondent’s business. Each letter also contains a paragraph that states "It is regrettable that you declined the opportunity to attend for interview with a local grower and avail of alternative employment which the company secured for you. The working terms and conditions of this employment were as explained, of a similar nature to your current employment." I enquired into this statement. The solicitor representing the six complainants said that he...