Case Number: ADJ-00025204. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00025204

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,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 Complaints are made by a maintenance worker who was employed by a publican for one day a week since 13th July 2004. The complaints refer to the alleged failure of the Respondent to provide the Complainant with his written terms and conditions of employment, and for an alleged unfair dismissal of the Complainant following a transfer of undertaking where the Respondent was the transferee. The complaints were denied by the Respondent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00031986-002 Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Respondent submitted that in January 2019, under a TUPE, it was the transferee of the place of work of the Complainant. The Respondent maintained it had written to all employees in December 2018 informing them of the transfer, and as the Complainant was on sick leave at the time it did not meet with the Complainant until he returned from sick leave in January 2019. At this meeting the Respondent informed the Complainant that it had to complete electrical and plumbing works to renew the licence on the premises and as the Complainant did not hold qualifications the work would be carried out by a certified contractor/ tradesperson.

They met again where the Respondent submitted that the Complainant discussed there was no work and that he believed his role had become redundant. The Respondent confirmed it would explore the options of redundancy and get back to the Complainant. The Respondent contended that the Complainant did not raise any concerns regarding being made redundant and to the contrary advised he would be satisfied to get a redundancy payment. On that basis the Respondent paid the Complainant for the weeks up to 21st June 2019, and paid him any outstanding holiday pay, and processed a RP50 application for the redundancy which was to be paid out of the Social Fund. The Complainant did not raise a concern at the time nor raise a grievance about his redundancy. The Respondent therefore had no doubt the Complainant had accepted the redundancy.

The Respondent understood the redundancy payment was processed but it only became aware of the fact the Redundancy...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT