Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Upholsterer

A Furniture Factory

Representatives

A  Family member

Company Managers

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00068497-001

08/01/2025

The issue in contention concerned an Upholsterer employed by a Furniture Factory. The allegation was that the Respondent Employer (the Factory) had not paid Statutory Redundancy to the Complainant.  The employment began on the 4th August 2020 and ended on the 12th January 2024 when the Complainant was laid off.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been € 440.70 for a 42.5 hour week.

The Complainant gave an oral testimony supported by a Written submission. He was assisted by Ms A, a family member.

He had been laid off from the Respondent on the 12th January 2024 – an RP9 had been issued. The Complainant did perform some very limited part time work for the Respondent in February ( 7 part days) and part of a day in March 2024.

As no further complete communication regarding a Return to full time Work was received from the Respondent, the Complainant sought, out of economic necessity, an alternative employment which he began on the 24th June 2024. The RP9 was completed and forwarded to the Respondent by registered mail. It was not accepted at the Respondent address and was retuned by An Post to the Complainant.

The Respondent and the Complainant met accidentally on the street in October 2024. The Complainant was adamant that the Return to Work offered then was not clear or substantial. He now had a much better employment with regular shifts and a higher rate of pay. He did indicate that he might still do a small bit of highly skilled work for the Respondent but changed his mind as he was anxious not to jeopardise his probation period with his new employer.

In summary the Complainant’s position was that he had worked for slightly more than three years for the Respondent, He had been laid off and no “proper” Return to Work was offered. He was due his Statutory Redundancy.

The Respondent Owner/Manager ,Mr X, gave a lengthy Oral testimony detailing the personal relationship over the previous three years between himself, other members of staff and the Complainant.  He was supported by Manager/Supervisors Mr Y and Mr Z. It was clear that the relationship had been characterised by  a few “Hiccups��. The Respondent Manager was very clear that the Complainant had quite often put himself in a situation where a less accommodating Employer would have simply dismissed him.

The Irish Furniture manufacturing business was very seasonal and the post-Christmas period was quite often a very slack time. The Complainant was highly skilled in a specialised aspect of upholstering and the Employer had no wish to lose him. However, he could not keep him on the payroll when work was simply not there. He had brought him back in February to do some specialised tasks. The Complainant had been quite uncooperative during this period and had refused to consider a return to work. In Oral testimony, under Oath,  Mr X and corroborated by Foreman Y stated that the Complainant was always “Too Busy” or had “important things to do”. Mr X had suggested a phased return of two days per week to do specialised work on Sofa Arms. Foreman Y stated that the Complainant told him “  I will come back when I am available” or “I will ring you when I am available.”. Texts were exchanged- Mr Y stated that the Complainant told him that he “was going to block the Respondents number” if they kept ringing /texting him.

The furniture trade picked up mid-Summer and there was work available. The Respondent had attempted to offer work to the Complainant in mid-Summer but by this stage the Complainant had found other work and was not interested.

In summary the Respondent stated that bespoke Furniture making In Ireland was a very tough business and laying off staff was almost inevitable in downturns. Post-Christmas 2024 was one such period.

The Complainant had very specialist skills and was almost irreplaceable in the Trade in the area where the work as based – a traditional Furniture making Leinster Town. They had never wanted to lose him and were open to all types of flexible arrangements.

The Complainant had a lot of other issues, some medical and others very personal, going on in his life. Discretion was used here at the Hearing by both Parties. The Respondent had gone out of his way to give him plenty of “slack” even when other staff had complained about him as a very difficult,  on a personality basis ,work colleague. The Respondent principal, Mr X,  had even loaned the Complainant money on occasions to get him out of particular difficulties.

Making him Redundant and severing the employment link was never on the Respondent agenda even though he was a very challenging person to employ.

On Adjudication Officer queries the Respondent did not appear to have been familiar with various Employment Support schemes available to employers to support “challenged” workers.

3:1       Legal discussion.

Cox, Corbett and Ryan in Employment Law in Ireland -Clarus Press 2009 observe at P 773 Chapter 22.1 that “the legislative framework underpinning the law relating to redundancy is complex”.  The headline Legal precedent is St Ledger v Frontline Distributors  Ireland Ltd -  1995 -ELR160. Two points were made in this case – Firstly Redundancy must be Impersonal ( the job not the worker) and secondly it has to involve “change” (to the business model, technology , changes of location etc).

Section 7 (2)  of the Redundancy Payments Act,1967 sets out 5 grounds (a to e below) for a Redundancy.

General right to redundancy payment.

7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

The Act also sets out fairly detailed procedural requirements and has numerous attached statutory Instruments on Procedural matters. These are relevant in this case.

The facts as presented in evidence have to be considered in the light of the above Legal requirements but also in their overall context and particular individual circumstances.

3:2        Consideration of the Evidence -both Written and Oral testimony presented.

The Complainant’s Advisor, Family Member, Ms A, provided a detailed Written Submission to the Hearing. Although a Legal lay person the paper trails set out by Ms A were clear cut and precise. The non-engagement of the Respondent in the process was exemplified by his somewhat unexplained refusal to accept/collect  Registered Mails -all of which were exhibited. The Respondent mentioned various physical workshops and confusions by the Post Office between same as an explanation. On a strictly procedural basis, Ms A maintained that the case was conclusive and Redundancy was due.

The Respondent relied on Oral testimony from Owner/Manager Mr X and Foreman Mr Y. They were both of honest demeanour and gave heartfelt compelling evidence under sworn oath/affirmation. It was emphasised at the start of the hearing by the Adjudication Officer what giving evidence under sworn oath/affirmation  involved. Foreman, Mr Y, reiterated that the Complainant had always been a somewhat unusual type of worker. As a craftsman he was superb but in a lot of his behaviours, personal habits etc , he found it difficult to get along with his colleagues. Most of his colleagues did not want to work with him on a day to day basis. The Owner/Manager had often gone out of his way to smooth things over with Colleagues and keep the Complainant in employment. His specialist skills were vital to the bespoke Furniture business. Mr X had explained that the lay off in January was unavoidable and would have “passed”  when business picked up later. However, both Mr X and Forman Mr Y, explained their complete frustration in trying to contact /reasonably discuss a return to work with the Complainant. They maintained that Complainant was not interested -told them he would “call them when he was available.” The Complainant had indicated that he was seeking other work – a bus driver position was mentioned and he was not interested in coming back as an Upholsterer. It has to be noted that this was all stated under Oath in the Public Hearing and was available to cross examination from the Complainant’s Representative. It went largely unchallenged.

From an Adjudication viewpoint it was hard to see how the 5 Redundancy “qualifications” in Section 7 (2) (a to e )were satisfied. There was work and the Respondent had tied to almost “negotiate” with the Complainant  to come back.

In favour of the Complainant the Respondent was very haphazard in his responses to the Registered Letters he had been sent by Ms A. Procedurally the Respondent was in a very weak position. The fact that a Counter notice in a Lay Off situation ,under Section 13 of the Act , was an Employer  option was a complete unknown. The Adjudication Officer felt that the Respondent was overly relying on long standing personal relationships and his previous “good turns” for the Complainant rather than any close consideration of the Legal position.

3:3       Adjudication Conclusions.

There is a major “De Facto” – (background and context as set out in Respondent Oral testimony) versus “De Jure” ( Strict Legal position as set out by Ms A for the Complainant)  situation in this case.

The Complainant , it appeared from all evidence, clearly did not want to go back to the bespoke Irish manufactured furniture business. It is well known that International Furniture mass manufacturing “ready pack” Companies are overwhelming small Irish niche manufacturers. The employment here was based in a traditional Irish furniture manufacturing Town. The Complainant had a rational economic argument. He secured regular work in a different industry.

The evidence of Mr X, Owner Manager  and Foreman Y was that there was work available and they had tried all year ( numerous phone calls, text messages, personal on street casual meetings ) to get the Complainant back to them. The Complainant was a very specialised Craftsman who would easily find work in the Furniture Trade but it would always be subject to the ups and downs of a niche bespoke declining  Irish Furniture making Industry.

The Oral testimony of Mr X and especially Foreman Y , (cautioned that he was under Oath/Affirmation,) was that the Complainant had made it clear he was looking for a more regular pattern of work outside of Furniture making. In simple English, he seemed to the Adjudicator to  have come to the view to “Jump before he was Pushed” with the almost inevitable major downsizing of traditional Furniture making.

Legally ,under the Redundancy Payments Aat,1967, this is not a solid basis for a single Redundancy claim.

Section 7 (2) (a to e) of the Act , as set out above, has to apply.

Subsection (a) – the work is continuing -the business is not closing

Subsection (b) -the requirement for a highly skilled upholsterer remains

Subsection(c) – no other employees are capable of doing the work

Subsection(d)- no change in skill basis of work

Subsection (e) – no alternative workers.

On this basis there are no strong grounds for a Statutory Redundancy .

However, on the Complainant’s side, Ms A , the Complainant’s Representative presented very able arguments. She rightly pointed out that the Respondent was procedurally quite remiss. He did not engage with the Registered Mails -RP9s etc. He seemed unaware of the general Legal situation and various employment support assistances available. The Technicalities of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and the options open to the Employer were not appreciated.

Normally, the legal Adjudication decision would have  to fall with Ms A. All her procedural steps were correct and the Respondent did not engage properly with the process. However, it was clear that the actual Complainant had major personal challenges and found the whole paperwork RP9s etc beyond his competence. Ms A had clearly written and submitted them on his behalf.

Regrettably ,in this case, the Redundancy Payments Act,1967 requires a strict Legal decision. Ms A’s procedural arguments have to be seen as very compelling when taken on their own.

However , all Legal cases have their own context and the Oral testimony ,under sworn Oath/Affirmation, from the Respondents  ,which was very direct and straightforward, was that the Complainant simply did not want to come back to work at the Employment preferring to go to another industry with more certain hours etc.

Unlike the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977, Section 7, where a “Just and equitable” decision can be made Redundancy requires a black or white decision. The question here is whether or not the strong procedural arguments of Ms A are outweighed by the overall context explained by the Oral Respondent testimony given under sworn Oath/Affirmation.

In this case, on the balance of all the evidence both Written and especially Oral the Adjudication view is that the Legal requirements in Redundancy Payments Act,1967,Section 7(2) above, to satisfy a Redundancy claim were not met. The basic fundamental point was that there was work, possibly not as regular as the Complainant desired, in the traditional Furniture Trade and the Complainant had declined to return, in favour, of changing to another Industry. The Respondent procedural weaknesses identified by Ms A have to be seen against this fundamental point. Legal precedent would favour the overall background “context” as opposed to procedural shortcomings by either side.

Taking all the evidence into account the Adjudication decision has to be that the Complaint fails.

Statutory Redundancy, Lay Off. xxx