EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CASE NO.
RP1055/2013
APPEAL OF:
Egidijus Kazlauskas - appellant
Against
O'Sullivan Darcy Engineering Limited - respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. K. T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Mr D. Hegarty
Mr D. McEvoy
heard this appeal at Killarney on 14th May 2015
Representation
Appellant: Ms Bernadette Thornton, Siptu, Workers Rights Centre, 9th Floor, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1
Respondent: Joe O'Brien, Construction Industry Federation, Construction House, 4 Eastgate Avenue, Little Island, Cork
Summary of Evidence
Dismissal is in dispute in this case.
The appellant worked for the respondent from 1 January 2004. He, along with other employees, was on intermittent short-time from 2008. In late May 2013 the respondent, having won a large contract advised its employees including the appellant, not to take holidays over the next few months. The appellant’s union representative wrote to the respondent on 17 June 2013 seeking a redundancy payment for the claimant. On 25 June 2013 the appellant phoned the respondent and gave one week’s notice that he was terminating his employment. He could not continue with the uncertainty regarding hours of work. He commenced on a welding course shortly thereafter. The appellant’s employment with the respondent ended on 3 July 2013. The respondent was disappointed as it would be under pressure with the new contract.
The respondent’s position was that the appellant did not fulfil the statutory criteria for a redundancy payment, by virtue of having been on short-time, either on the receipt of the 17 June letter or on receipt of the two RP9s.
Determination
Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as substituted by section 11 of the 1971 Act provides:
“12. (1) An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off or kept on short-time unless—
(a) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for four or more consecutive weeks or, within a period of thirteen weeks, for a series of six or more weeks of which not more than three were consecutive,
(b) after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short-time mentioned in paragraph (a) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short-time, he gives to his employer notice (in this Part referred to as a notice of intention to claim) in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time.
(2) Where, after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short-time mentioned in subsection (1) (a) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short time, an employee to whom that subsection applies, in lieu of giving to his employer a notice of intention to claim, terminates his contract of employment either by giving him the notice thereby required or, if none is so required, by giving him not less than one week's notice in writing of intention to terminate the contract, the notice so given shall, for the purposes of this Part and of Schedule 2, be deemed to be a notice of intention to claim given in writing to the employer by the employee on the date on which the notice is actually given.”
Having examined the appellant’s payslips and bank statements, the Tribunal finds that the appellant, not having been on short-time for four consecutive weeks or for a series of six weeks within the period of thirteen weeks prior to the termination of his employment, is not entitled to a redundancy payment. Accordingly, the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 is dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)