Union accuses DHL of trying to avoid ‘substantial’ redundancy payout for veteran worker

Logistics giant DHL has been accused of trying to avoid paying a “substantial” redundancy sum to a veteran employee and leaving him “begging” a rival firm for work when a contract changed hands.
At the Workplace Relations Commission on Monday, Barry Ryan, who worked for DHL Supply Chain Ireland Ltd from September 2009 to 31st August last year, claimed he had his employment terminated without receiving his statutory entitlements under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in September 2022.
The company insists his job transferred to the other logistics firm and there was no redundancy – while his trade union, Siptu, maintains the other firm, Primeline Logistics in Ashbourne, Co Meath, has refused to accept the transfer – leaving Mr Ryan in a “vacuum”.
The employment tribunal was told Mr Ryan originally transferred into DHL when the pharmacy group Boots outsourced logistics work in September 2009, retaining his service and entitlements in line with the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (TUPE).
Mr Ryan said that in February 2022 he was told DHL would not be renewing its contract with Boots and while DHL proposed alternative positions for Mr Ryan, he said he had insufficient information and didn’t believe they were suitable.
On August 31, 2022 he was asked to turn in his site access card and his company laptop. “On that day I was basically dismissed by DHL. That’s where I am now,” he said. He said that after spending “a week with my head in my hands” he went to Primeline looking for work and took up a job offer.
However, he said he lost his 25 years’ accrued service, sick benefit, access to a pension scheme and other entitlements.
“I felt I was cut free and thrown out after all those years of service . . . I had 25 years service basically flushed down the toilet by DHL,” he said.
Sarah Dowling of IBEC, appearing for the company, put it to Mr Ryan in cross-examination that the date and place of a meeting with the DHL staff on the Boots contract and Primeline had been given to him at a meeting on 31st August, 2022.
Mr Ryan said he was “in a state of shock” because he considered himself to have been dismissed on that date. As far as he was concerned, the staff weren’t being transferred, he said, adding that he never received notice of the meeting in writing.
“DHL said all along: ‘It’s TUPE.’ There’s literature there from Primeline saying it’s not TUPE,” Mr Ryan said. “I’m going over there begging because DHL pushed me out the door,” he added.
Ms Dowling submitted that there was a “commercial agreement between Boots and DHL that where the Boots contract went, the employees would go with it”.
“DHL upheld that side of the commercial agreement up until 31 August 2022. Primeline had successfully acquired that contract, therefore the employees went there,” Ms Dowling submitted.
Vivian Cullen of the Siptu Workers’ Rights Centre, appearing for the worker, said: “We refute the authenticity of that statement. Primeline has denied there was any transfer of undertakings.”
While Mr Ryan contended there had been “a litany of people paid off” at DHL in redundancy processes during his time, his former line manager, Eamonn Corrigan, said that nobody working on the Boots contract for DHL had received a redundancy payment. Out of the 18 employees, he said 13 were redeployed within DHL, three “sought to assert their rights through TUPE”, and one had retired.
Peter Spencer, a DHL industrial relations manager, explained that a WRC conciliation process involving Siptu, DHL and Primeline in September 2022 had failed to resolve the question of worker transfers.
“As a gesture of goodwill, we put roles on the table to guarantee positions and recognise service,” Mr Spencer said.
He said Mr Ryan’s employment had not been terminated by DHL but had transferred to Primeline. However, he accepted under questioning from Mr Cullen that Primeline “always asserted that there was no transfer of undertakings that would apply”.
Mr Cullen put it to him that Mr Ryan was left in a “vacuum” because of the impasse. Mr Spencer said DHL recognised that and had offered “suitable alternative roles” for that reason.
In a closing submission, Mr Cullen said: “We’re asserting that there was a calibrated, orchestrated effort to create an amorphous situation and negate a redundancy situation by abandonment.”
DHL’s “ulterior motive” was to “avoid paying a substantial lump sum to a staff member who’d served them over 25 years”, Mr Cullen alleged.
“Mr Ryan’s role became redundant [when] DHL chose not to renew a contract with Boots. We assert that DHL breached trust, resulting in an untenable situation that forced Barry Ryan . . . to then go with his cap in hand to Primeline to interview for a job with no guarantee they’d accept him. If he did get accepted, it was with lesser terms, a loss of service, loss of holidays, different shift patterns,” he said.
Ms Dowling argued: “The position existed and transferred as part of the transfer regulations. The claimant exercised his right to transfer.”
The adjudicator, Orla Jones, is now considering her decision and is expected to deliver it in writing to the parties at a future date.