Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vasile Catalin Enea

Asendia Limited T/A Cascade Group [amended on consent at hearing]

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00080482-001

06/02/2026

This matter came before the WRC dated 06/02/2026 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. 

The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 10/06/2026.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a General Operative at all material times.  The Respondent at all material times is a company engaged in the construction business.

The Complainant commenced his employment in the Respondent company on 04/11/2022.  The Complainant worked 40 hours per week for which he was paid €920 gross per week. 

This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant submits he was placed on temporary lay-off effective 19 December 2025. 

The Respondent submits the commencement of lay-off was 05 January 2026. 

CA-00080482-001

Overview of written submission / statement of facts

I was placed on temporary lay-off effective 19 December 2025, as confirmed in the written notification issued by my employer. At no point during this period was I provided with a definite return-to-work date, nor was there any clear communication regarding when work would resume. At no stage did I perform any actual work during the relevant period. Any payments made to me during this time related solely to accrued annual leave or statutory public holiday entitlements (Christmas period), and do not represent ongoing employment or the provision of work. On 28 January 2026, the employer confirmed in writing that no work was available at that time. In light of this situation, and in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts, I submitted my notice of intention to claim redundancy. Due to the prolonged uncertainty and absence of income, I had no reasonable alternative but to seek other employment. I dispute the employer’s subsequent attempt to amend the lay-off commencement date to 5 January 2026, as this contradicts the original written confirmation provided to me.

I respectfully submit that my lay-off commenced on 19 December 2025, as clearly stated in the original documentation issued by my employer. At no stage was I provided with a guaranteed return-to-work date or assurance of ongoing employment during the lay-off period. The employer’s attempt to retrospectively alter the lay-off start date is inconsistent and should not be accepted.

I respectfully request that my claim for statutory redundancy be upheld in full under the Redundancy Payments Acts.

Summary of direct evidence of Complainant on oath

The Complainant submits he was laid off on 19 December 2025 after being told on 12 December that he was going to be put on temporary lay-off.  He is unable to confirm that he remembers being told at the meeting on 12 December that the lay-off would be starting on 05 January 2026.  The Complainant makes reference to the letter he received stating lay-off would commence on 19 December 2025. 

It is the Complainant’s case that the lay-off commenced on 19/12/2025 and his request for a redundancy payment on 28/01/2026 was in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts.

CA-00080482-001

Summary of direct evidence of Respondent witness Mr Aidan O’Connor on affirmation

The Respondent submits that he had a meeting with the Complainant on 12 December 2025 and he advised that temporary lay-off would commence on 05/01/2026.  The Respondent submits they wanted to give as much notice as possible.  The Complainant remained on payroll until 03/01/2026 and payslips are opened to the hearing.  The Respondent submits the date on the letter of 19 December was an error and he did not realise this when the letter was handed to the Complainant. 

The Respondent submits that when he met with the Complainant on 12 December, he explained that the lay-off would commence from 05/01/2026 and advised the Complainant not to make a claim for any social welfare payments before that date.  

The Respondent maintains they made an offer of part-time work on 29 January 2026 which was followed by an offer full time work on 30 January 2026 to which the Complainant replied that he had accepted alternative employment commencing the following week and seeking that his statutory redundancy payment be processed without delay. 

CA-00080482-001

The Relevant Facts

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.    

It is not in dispute the Complainant’s contract of employment provides as follows at clause 15:

“the Company reserves the right to lay you off from work or reduce your working hours where, through circumstances beyond its control, it is unable to maintain you in employment or unable to maintain you in employment for the contractual hours.  You will receive as much notice as it reasonably possible prior to such lay-off or short-time.  No payment will be made for any period of layoff.  Payment will only be made for hours actually worked during any period of short time”.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was entitled to place the Complainant on lay-off as provided for in the contract of employment.  It is not in dispute the notice of this lay-off was provided on 12 December 2025.  I am satisfied based on the evidence adduced at hearing and having considered the supporting documentation most notably the payslips and the Employment Detail Summary issued by Revenue that the period of lay-off commenced on 05/01/2026. 

The Relevant Law

This is a complaint pursuant to section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014 (“the Acts”).  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)   have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)   be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)   be over the age of 16;

(4)   have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)   not have received a lump sum payment. 

The Acts at section 11 sets out the definition of lay-off as follows: -

Lay-off and short-time.

“11.— (1) Where an employee’s employment ceases by reason of his employer’s being unable to provide the work for which the employee was employed to do, and—

(a) it is reasonable in the circumstances for that employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent, and

(b) the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation,

that cessation of employment shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as lay-off.”

The Acts at section 12 provides a right to redundancy payment by reason of lay-off or short-time as follows:

“(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, and

(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.”

The Acts as section 13 sets out the right of an employer to give counter-notice as follows: -

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of a notice of intention to claim if, on the date of service of that notice, it was reasonably to be expected that the employee (if he continued to be employed by the same employer) would, not later than four weeks after that date, enter upon a period of employment of not less than thirteen weeks during which he would not be laid off or kept on short-time for any week.

 (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply unless, within seven days after the service of the notice of intention to claim, the employer gives to the employee notice (in this Part referred to as a counter-notice) in writing that he will contest any liability to pay to him a redundancy payment in pursuance of the notice of intention to claim.” 

I note the Complainant relies on section 12(1)(a) of the Acts to ground his complaint, which requires that he give his employer notice in writing of his intention to claim a statutory redundancy payment in respect of a lay-off.   

However, a statutory condition precedent to the filing of a notice in writing of the intention to claim a statutory redundancy payment is the requirement that an employee should be on lay-off on lay-off for a period of four or more consecutive weeks at the date of service of his notice. 

The Complainant served his notice on 28 January 2026 by which time I am satisfied he had been on lay-off for just over 3 weeks.  Accordingly, the Complainant had not yet reached the statutory threshold of 28 days.   

Notwithstanding the premature service of notice, the Respondent, on 3 February 2026, issued a counter-notice and advising there was a role on the same pay terms and conditions etc commencing on 04 February 2026 and asking the Complainant to reconsider his email of resignation from the company on 30 January 2026. 

It is noted the Complainant had in fact resigned on 30 January 2026 as this is clearly and unequivocally set out in his email as follows: 

“I wish to clarify that I will not be able to return to work with Cascade group as I have accepted alternative employment starting next week.”   

I am satisfied the counter notice issued by the Respondent was in compliance with section 13 of the Acts.  I am satisfied the Complainant refused the offer of employment in circumstances where he had already, on 30 January, advised the Respondent when he would not be returning to work as he had accepted alternative employment.   

Section 15 of Acts provides for an employee’s disentitlement to redundancy payment for refusing to accept an offer of alternative employment as follows:

“Disentitlement to redundancy payment for refusal to accept alternative employment

15.-(1)  An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if –

(a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of the termination of his contract, and

(d) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if –

(a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,

(d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract, and

(e) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2A) Where an employee who has been offered suitable employment and has carried out, for a period of not more than four weeks, the duties of that employment, refuses the offer, the temporary acceptance of that employment shall not solely constitute an unreasonable refusal for the purposes of this section.”

Having considered the totality of the evidence I am satisfied that as the Respondent has offered the Complainant employment on the same terms and conditions and in such circumstances as outlined above a claim for redundancy under the impleaded legislation cannot be maintained.        

For the reasons set out above, I find this complaint to be not well-founded and the appeal by the Complainant against the decision of the Respondent to turn down his application for a redundancy payment fails. 

CA-00080482-001

I do not allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his employer to pay a redundancy for the reasons set out above.  Accordingly, I decide this complaint as presented is not well-founded.