EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Monica Byrne -appellant
National Disabled Angling Facility Limited-respondent
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr N. Russell
Members: Mr J. Horan
Ms S. Kelly
heard this appeal at Carlow on 5 January 2015 & 18 March 2015
Appellant: Mr Stanley Kenny, 16 Blackberry Glade, Arklow, Co Wicklow
Respondent: Mr. Bernard Keating (Chairman), Mr. Barry Moules (Treasurer),
Mr. David Chapple (Secretary) & Mr. Cormac Walsh (accountant)
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:
Two questions fell to be addressed by the Tribunal in the context of the appellant’s claim for a redundancy payment there being no issue as to her entitlement. Firstly, the Tribunal is required to determine the identity of the appellant’s employer. Secondly, the Tribunal is asked to determine who precisely is obliged to make the redundancy payment.
The Tribunal has heard evidence from personnel of the Department of Social Protection from those involved in the administration of the CE Scheme under which the appellant was employed and has considered the representations made by the respondent.
The answer to the first question to be considered by the Tribunal is that the respondent was the appellant’s employer. The answer to the second question is that the statutory obligation to discharge the appellant’s redundancy payment is the respondent’s (as employer) and the Tribunal finds that the appellant is entitled to a redundancy payment calculated on the following criteria:
Date of Birth:
Date of Commencement: 1 September 1997
Date of Termination: 24 May 2013
Gross Weekly Pay: €386.25
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
While the foregoing Determination and Order of the Tribunal discharges its statutory obligation the Tribunal is of the view that, in all of the circumstances of this case, it is entitled to make an observation on the de facto relationship that existed between the respondent and Foras Áiseanna Saothair (FAS).
On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there are strong signs that the respondent had a legitimate expectation on the determination of the appellant’s employment that FÁS (and the Department in succession) would discharge the full redundancy payment and that the respondent would not be expected to carry any of the burden of payment. It may well be a matter for another forum to determine if the contractual relationship between the respondent and FÁS was such that the respondent was effectively indemnified, in all of the circumstances, in respect of the cost of any of the redundancy payment.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal