EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Kevin Hogg - appellant RP564/2013
Sign Impact Limited - respondent
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr. T. Ryan
Members: Mr W. Power
Mr N. Dowling
heard this appeal at Dublin on 12th August 2014.
Appellant: Mr Andrew McCann, Fingal Citizens Information Service, Unit
26 The Plaza, Main Street, Swords, Fingal, Co Dublin
Respondent: Mr. Ciaran O’Mara, O’Mara Geraghty McCourt, 51 Northumberland Road,
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:
At the outset of the hearing the claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 was withdrawn.
The appellant commenced employment on 30th April 1990. His role was that of sign writer. In around 2007 he was promoted to Production Manager.
Due to a downturn in the business the appellant was placed on lay off in early February 2013. He was subsequently furnished with a letter to enable him to avail of social welfare payments.
Because the appellant had no work for four consecutive weeks he served Notice of Intention to claim a redundancy lump sum payment (form RP9) on the respondent. As he did not receive a response from the respondent he served a second RP9 on the respondent on 13th June 2013 followed by an RP77 on 8th November 2013 and finally completed an on line RP50 form and furnished a copy to the respondent.
The appellant did not receive any response from the respondent.
It was the appellant’s understanding that his employment was terminated on 4th March 2013.
In early February 2013 the respondent suffered financial difficulties. As a result the appellant was placed on lay off. The respondent was subsequently contacted by the appellant’s representative seeking a meeting. Some two weeks later he met with both the appellant and his representative. He was asked to furnish a letter to the appellant so that he could avail of social welfare payments following his placement on lay off. He furnished this letter. The appellant said he did not wish to return to work. No discussions took place regarding redundancy at this meeting.
Following receipt of an RP9 form from the appellant he immediately forwarded this form to his Accountant. He did not respond to the appellant. He did not read the RP9. He could not confirm if he had received a second RP9 from the appellant.
Following a period of four weeks on lay off the appellant served notice of his intention to claim a redundancy lump sum payment (RP9) on the respondent. As he never received a response to this notice, he served a second RP9 followed by an RP77 and an RP50.The respondent failed to respond to any of these notices.
Under Section 13 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, an employee is not entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of a notice of intention to claim if, on the date that notice was served, it was reasonably expected that the employee would, not later than four weeks after that date, be provided with full employment for at least thirteen weeks. For this to apply, the employer must serve a counter notice on the employee (appellant) within seven days of the service of the notice of intention to claim redundancy. By his own admission the employer acknowledged that he received the appellant’s notice of intention to claim redundancy, yet he did not serve counter notice on the appellant as he is required to do under Section 13 of the Act.
Having heard the entire evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 based on the following criteria:
Date of Commencement: 30th April 1990
Date of Termination: 4th March 2013
Gross Weekly Wage: €595.00
This award is made subject to the appellant fulfilling current social welfare requirements in relation to PRSI contributions.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal