Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Donatas  Ziziunas

Roadcare Ltd

Representatives

Evan O'Dwyer of O'Dwyer Solicitors

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-00070101-001

19/03/2025

The Complainant worked for the Respondent business as a driver. The Respondent provides road construction and maintenance services.

Generally the year was divided into an high season between March and September when the Respondent was involved in road construction and the Complainant’s role involved driving material to road construction sites. During winter off season the Respondent’s employees, including the Complainant were mostly engaged in road maintenance works.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter.

The Complainant had some difficulty in recalling the exact sequence of events related to his resignation but confirmed the information supplied in his complaint form.

The Complainant was working up until the 11th of December 2024 when he suffered a workplace injury. He was signed off work until the 31st of January 2025 but looked to return from the 21st of January and notified the Respondent of this about a week beforehand. The Respondent indicated they had no work for him and placed him on lay-off.

The Complainant continued to seek work and was told there was none available until his resignation on the 4th of February 2025.

The Respondent’s solicitor attended the hearing to seek an adjournment. The Respondent disputes the claim in its entirety however a key witness had become suddenly unavailable due to illness.

The Respondent is a family business and its members experienced a family tragedy shortly before the dispute with the Complainant arose. This had an impact on the operation of the business at that time.

Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act outlines the circumstances in which an employee on lay-off can become entitled to redundancy.

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, 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

(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.

As outlined above the entitled to redundancy only arises after an employee has been on lay-off for four weeks. It is at that point that the employee can give notice of their intention to claim redundancy and the employer has the right to provide counter notice.

It is accepted by the Complainant that he had resigned three weeks after being placed on lay-off. He did not follow the steps required by Section 12 to become entitled to a redundancy lump sum while on lay-off.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.