A remote worker who said she was given the “impossible” task of relocating from Monaghan to Cork to comply with a return-to-office mandate was made redundant within six months, the WRC has been told.
In a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 against PFH Technology Group Ltd, Catriona Douglas said she was “dissatisfied with a decision of a deciding officer in relation to a redundancy lump sum”.
However, she said her options were “very limited” when filling out the WRC’s complaint form and that her grievance was with the process that led to her job ending last September. She had worked as a scheduler and administrative assistant earning around €31,500 a year, the tribunal heard.
“The whole complaint is based on a return to office and an end of remote working, and the fact that I was expected to work from the Cork office,” Ms Douglas said.
Ms Douglas had given an address in Emyvale, Co Monaghan in her complaint form and said she had never worked for the company at its main office in Little Island, Co Cork in the years since she joined in October 2018.
She said her original job site was Dr Steevens’ Hospital in Dublin before her role was made entirely remote during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ms Douglas said she received a “termination of remote working” letter from her employer on April 12th, 2024 which gave her the four weeks to return to work in person at the office in Cork.
“It was going to be impossible,” she said. “It was brought to my attention there would be disciplinary action brought forth if I wasn’t back in the office. I didn’t want to get involved in a disciplinary action, I wanted to keep my job.
She said she took stress leave as a result of the pressure.
She described further engagements with the firm as her sick leave continued. “I wasn’t given the support I needed to make a move like that, and there wasn’t any discussion around any other alternative locations,” she said.
There was no discussion of redundancy until July, by which time she was applying for new jobs both within the PFH group and externally, the complainant said.
She said a document was presented to her in July 2024 as a “compromise agreement”. There no mention of redundancy in the document, which referred to a “gesture of goodwill without any admission of liability” and a waiver of claim under 34 different Acts.
“What I know now is, given the difficulty of relocating to Cork, that I should have been going into a redundancy,” she said.
She said she had been “a little bit naiive” when the document was presented to her. Her position was that the termination agreement should have included a clause making provision for her to take independent legal advice on the termination.
Having consulted a solicitor, she said, she “became hesitant to sign”.
“I just think it’s dubious, I think they tried to hoodwink me into leaving – hand in my notice and think: ‘Oh well, my job’s up, I can’t go to court’,” Ms Douglas said.
She contended that the sum paid to her on termination should have included a sum for legal costs, medical expenses and sums she had paid for tuition on a course she abandoned as a result of the termination of her employment.
‘My plan is to make sure Smurfit Westrock is one of the great companies of the world’: Tony Smurfit on taking the family business global
Cara Jane Walsh, appearing for the employer instructed by Leah Moriarty of law firm RDJ LLP, said it appeared from Ms Douglas’s evidence that was no dispute the claimant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment of €7,788 based on her service from October 2018 to September 2024.
She said that sum had been “correctly calculated and fully discharged” on September 30th last year.
The other grievances raised by Ms Douglas were matters that fell outside the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act, she submitted.
“The form as presented to Ms Douglas is part of employers and employees parting ways. There’s no ill-feeling, no malice, nothing out of the ordinary in how that was presented to Ms Douglas. All of that is not something that should be considered by you,” Ms Walsh said.
She added that there was also no provision in the redundancy legislation providing for a payment covering legal fees or other expenses referred to by the complainant.
Adjudicator Úna Glazier-Farmer said she would issue her decision by email in due course to the parties.
