EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE - appellant
EMPLOYER - respondent
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Mr J. Browne
Mr F. Dorgan
heard this appeal at Kilkenny on 27th June 2013
Summary of Evidence
The appellant worked for the respondent electrical company from September 1998 until he was put on temporary lay-off in April 2011. The appellant’s evidence was that over the following 18/19 months the respondent did not offer him any further work. The appellant contacted his trade union official (TU), who served an RP 9 form on the respondent in November 2012, seeking a redundancy payment but got no response from the respondent. On 24 January 2013 TU wrote to the respondent again seeking the appellant’s redundancy payment. A copy of this letter was opened to the Tribunal. The evidence of the managing director (MD) of the respondent company was that he had not received any RP9 on behalf of the appellant and while he had received the letter of 24 January 2013 he had not replied to it.
MD’s evidence was that in January 2011 the respondent company started a two-year contract in a specialised hospital. The appellant began on the contract but after a few days working there the appellant, who had previously worked in the same hospital, indicated that he was not comfortable working there and did not want to continue there. The respondent transferred the appellant to another job and took on another employee to work on the hospital project. If the appellant had accepted the work on the hospital he would still be working for the respondent company.
MD subsequently became aware that the appellant was carrying out work for his father’s company. The appellant’s evidence was that his father owns an electrical company and he carried out certification work for that company following his lay-off from the respondent company. He continues to carry out those duties to date.
The appellant maintained that as the respondent had not offered him 13 weeks continuous employment following submitting the RP9 to the respondent, he was entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment. MD maintained that as the appellant had refused the offer of work he was not entitled to a redundancy payment.
The appellant was placed on temporary lay-off in April 2011. This is confirmed by the respondent’s letter of 20 April 2011 to/for Social Welfare. While the Tribunal accepts that due to some misadventure MD did not receive the RP9 form sent to him in November 2012, it finds that the contents of TU’s letter of 24 January 2013, which referred to the RP9 placed an onus on MD to follow up on the matter. However, MD took no further steps to deal with the matter and did not offer the appellant 13 weeks continuous employment within 7 days of receipt of the aforementioned letter of 24 January. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the appellant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, based on the following details:
Date of Birth: 13 January 1982
Date of commencement of employment: 11 September 1998
Date of termination of employment: 1 February 2013
Non-reckonable service: 20 April 2011 to 1 February 2013
Gross weekly pay: €838.00
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
It should be noted that payments from the Social Insurance Fund are limited to a maximum of €600.00 per week.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal