Background:

The Complainant started in the role with the Respondent on 26th September 2016 which ended on 24th April 2020. She commenced employment as an Accounts Payable Administrator. She then moved to an Accounts Payable Specialist role and she was promoted to an Accounts Payable Business Analyst.

The Complainant outlined she was made redundant in April 2020. The Complainant submitted she did not receive the redundancy payment she was entitled to. She outlined the offer of an alternative role made by the Respondent was not suitable to her career plans and she declined the offer. The Complainant stated the offer was for the role of Procurement Operations Analyst which was completely different role. The Complainant submitted that she had put a lot of work into her specialisation in Accounts Payable and she would have to do it all again in Procurement. The Complainant submitted some of her colleagues in Accounts Payable were offered Procurement roles while others were made redundant. The Respondent outlined that the consolidation placed eight roles at risk and there was a consultation process with all staff including the Complainant. The five others who were offered roles accepted them and remain in employment. The Respondent submitted the Complainant’s terms and conditions were to stay the same and there was an overlap between the two roles which were at either end of the same process. The Respondent stated there were five meetings with the Complainant, and they agreed to her request for a part-time role.  It was the Respondent’s belief that it was unreasonable for the Complainant to decline the role as this was a bona fide role and there was significant cross-over of the skills required for the role.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer (AO) highlighted the suitability of alternative employment is generally viewed objectively, while the reasonableness of the employee’s decision to decline is subjective and depends on factors personal to them. The AO stated that the offer of the alternative role in Procurement, based at the same location and with the same terms and conditions was clearly a suitable offer. The question was whether it was unreasonable for the Complainant to turn it down. The Complainant argued she had accomplished a huge amount of work in Accounts Payable and would have to do the same again in Procurement. This is a factor personal to the Complainant, and viewed from her point of view, it was reasonable for her to turn down the new role in Procurement. Given that the Complainant did not unreasonably refuse the offer of alternative employment, section 15(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts does not apply, and the Complainant is, therefore, entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment. The AO ruled that the Complainant was entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The Redundancy Payments Act provides an employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment is if an offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,

1. his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,
2. the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,
3. the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,
4. the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract, and
5. he has unreasonably refused the offer.

The suitability of the alternative employment is generally viewed objectively, while the reasonableness of the employee’s decision to decline is subjective and depends on factors personal to them.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/january/adj-00033134.html