Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Brendan  Coone

Gerard Healy (on consent)

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-00076528-001

15/10/2025

The Complainant was employed as a school bus driver operating primary and secondary school routes which the Respondent was operating on a contract basis for Bus Eireann in the West Cork area. The pay was a matter of dispute. The Complainant claimed he was working 25 hours a week on a gross salary of €375. The Respondent however contested this by producing the operating board for his work which showed that he worked 21 hours a week and his wage for this work was €347.22 gross plus €27.28 annual leave in lieu payment.  The work followed the academic calendar. Each year, during the summer months from approximately June to September, there was no school transport work available. The Complainant commenced employment on 1 December 2018, a date accepted by both parties at the hearing, and continued working on the school routes until 2 May 2025, the date of his 70th birthday being on the following day.  On that date, his employment ended after the Respondent lost the relevant transport contract and the routes ceased. The reason given was that there was a stipulation from Bus Eireann that no driver over 70 years of age should be retained on their contracts. No other driver was available to the Respondent

The Respondent does not dispute that the routes ended due to loss of contract. The dispute centres on whether the Complainant offer of purported alternative employment is a defence to the complaint.

The Complainant gave evidence that he began working for the Respondent in December 2018 and worked each school term continuously thereafter until May 2025. Although he did not work during the summer months, he returned automatically at the start of each new school year. He stated that he was never informed that his employment terminated at the end of any school year, nor was he required to reapply for his position.

In May 2025 he was informed that there would be no further work available to him because the Respondent had lost the transport contract. He maintains that this meant his job ceased to exist and that he was therefore dismissed by reason of redundancy. He claims a statutory redundancy lump sum calculated based on continuous service from 1 December 2018 to 3 May 2025. He disputes that any firm offer of suitable alternative employment was made to him.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s work was seasonal and aligned with the school year, and that he did not work during the summer months. It contends that, because the work was seasonal, redundancy entitlement should not arise. The Respondent also suggested that alternative work, namely a private school run, had been discussed and that the Complainant declined it. The offer to give him alternative work was in relation to a private school run and was made in November 2024. The Respondent claimed there would have been no loss of earnings for the Complainant. The Respondent claims the Complainant refused the offer because of a twice daily round trip of twenty minutes each day.

I must determine firstly if a redundancy situation existed, and if so, if the Complainant was eligible for a Redundancy sum by testing the length and continuity of service as allowed under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, as amended. I must also look at the purported offer of alternative work

The Applicable Law:

Was there continuous employment?

A central issue in this case is whether the annual summer cessation of work broke continuity of employment. Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Acts provides that certain interruptions do not break continuity, including temporary lay-off.

The evidence establishes a consistent pattern whereby the Complainant ceased working during the summer months and resumed work each September without reapplying. There was no persuasive evidence that the employment relationship was formally terminated at the end of each school year and recommenced afresh. No documentation was produced to demonstrate repeated terminations or new contracts displacing the statutory continuity provisions.

While the work was seasonal, seasonality alone does not break continuity. The question is whether the employment relationship endured during the interruption. On the balance of probabilities, I find that the summer periods amounted to temporary lay-off within the meaning of the Acts and did not sever the contractual relationship. The Respondent’s acknowledgment that the Complainant had been working continuously since 2018 further supports that conclusion.

I therefore find that the Complainant’s employment was continuous from 1 December 2018 to 3 May 2025 and that he exceeds the statutory minimum of 104 weeks’ continuous employment required to qualify for redundancy.

Did a Redundancy situation exist?

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

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.

Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, a redundancy arises where the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the employer’s requirement for employees to carry out work of a particular kind having ceased or diminished.

On the evidence before me, the Complainant’s employment ended because the Respondent lost the school transport contract and no longer required him to carry out that work. This was not a dismissal related to performance or conduct; it arose because the work itself ceased. I am satisfied that this constitutes a genuine redundancy situation within the meaning of 7(2) of the Act.

Was Alternative work offered?

Section 15 of the Act deals with disentitlement to redundancy payment for refusal to accept alternative employment. It provides:

(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.

The Respondent asserted that alternative work had been discussed and declined. The Complainant denied that any definite or formal offer was made.  I am satisfied the Respondent never foresaw a redundancy situation developing, as under the Act,  when he made the alleged offer which was made  in November 2024, well in advance of the actual redundancy. The position of the Respondent throughout was that there was no redundancy in this case.  When the Complainant was permanently laid off no offer was made to him about alternative employment. Having considered the conflicting accounts and the nature of the purported offer, I am not satisfied that a clear and suitable offer of alternative employment was made in a manner that would disentitle the Complainant from redundancy in line with section 15 of the Acts.

In conclusion, based on the evidence and submissions I heard, I find the Complainant made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a). I allow the Complainants appeal and I award him statutory redundancy on the following basis Section 4(1) of the 1967  Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.” I am satisfied, based on the evidence, that the weekly pay for payment calculation is €347.22.

CA-00076528-001 Redundancy Payment: I allow the Complainant’s appeal and, subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, he is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis:

Date of Commencement: 1 December 2018

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: 2 May 2025

Gross Weekly Wage: €347.22

During, and only during, the three-year period ending with the date of termination of employment, absence by reason of temporary lay-off by the Respondent, as in this case, should not be reckonable in the calculation of the Redundancy sum, in line with section 8, Schedule 3, of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012.   

Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, Part-Time School Bus Driver.