EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE , RP1064/2012
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. J. McGovern BL
Members: Mr. T. O'Grady
Mr. A. Butler
heard this case in Dublin on 13 August 2013
No legal representation
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The appellant claimed that his employment, which commenced on 26 June 2005, ended by reason of redundancy on 27 March 2012. His gross weekly pay was €780.00.
The respondent, a construction industry employment agency, argued that the concept of redundancy did not apply to the appellant because continuation of employment had not been the appellant’s desire but, rather, that a redundancy lump sum had been what the appellant had wanted. It was contended that the lodging of a redundancy appeal to the Tribunal had been the appellant’s preferred option rather than the acceptance of any work-related assignment offered to him. It was even alleged that only the prospect of failure had caused the appellant to discontinue a prior attempt to obtain a redundancy lump sum. It was the respondent’s position that the appellant had not wished to remain employed by the respondent and had tried to contrive an entitlement to a redundancy payment.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, the Tribunal finds that the appeal fails in that the appellant is not entitled to a redundancy lump sum. The Tribunal heard sworn testimony from the appellant and from the respondent’s contracts manager. The Tribunal was not satisfied by the appellant’s explanation of his non-acceptance of a particular assignment on the grounds that he did not know where it was located. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the appellant should not have been prepared to drive a significant distance to accept an assignment. The Tribunal did accept that work was being offered.
The claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005, fails because it was not established that the respondent was the party that had terminated the appellant’s employment.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal