Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Felician Ionel  Coser

Asendia Ltd t/a Cascade Group

Representatives

Self

Aidan O’Connor, Commercial Manager

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-00080775-001

15/02/2026

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 04/01/2022 as a General Operative.  He was paid €1,364 per week and worked 40 hours per week.  He was placed on lay-off from 05/01/2026.  His application for a redundancy payment was rejected by the Respondent as his request was made prior to the expiration of a four-week continuous period of lay-off. 

The Respondent rejects this complaint as they made an offer for the Complainant to return to the same role and same terms and conditions but he did not accept. 

The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 15/02/2026.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He confirmed that he commenced employment with the Respondent on 04/01/2022.  His role was that of general operative on various building projects.  On 12/12/2025 he was advised that he was being placed on a temporary lay-off.   He submits that this was confirmed in a letter he received from the Respondent which stated that the lay-off was from 19/12/2025. 

As he had no work he contacted the Respondent at various times during January 2026 seeking an update in relation to the likelihood of returning to work.  He was informed that there was no work available yet but the Respondent was looking for new contracts.

The Complainant contacted the Respondent on 30/01/2026 requesting a redundancy payment under Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

The Respondent sent a formal counter notice on 05/02/2025.  The Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 15/02/2026.

It is the Complainant’s position that the lay-off commenced on 19/12/2025 and his request for a redundancy payment on 30/01/2026 was within the statutory time frame.

The Respondent had no questions for the Complainant by way of cross examination and relies on their evidence and submission.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that the four pay slips submitted by the Respondent were received by him and the money outlined was also received by him.  These pay slips were for the week ending 6th, 13th and 27th December 2025 and one for the week ending 3rd January 2026.   The Complainant stated that two of those payments were for annual leave.

Mr Aidan O’Connor, Commercial Manager, gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent.  He confirmed that before the Complainant was placed on lay-off he met with him and explained the process.  He outlined that the lay-off would commence from 05/01/2026 and advised him not to make a claim for any social welfare payments before that date.   Mr O’Connor confirmed that the business closes for the Christmas period.  This is clearly outlined in the Complainant’s contract of employment (9.3) which stated that around Christmas time “we close the premises for a period of two weeks”. 

Mr O’Connor gave evidence that the Complainant’s period of lay-off commenced on 05/01/2026.  There was a date error in the original letter which stated 19/12/2025.  Mr O’Connor noted that the Complainant’s pay slips for the period of December 2025 and January 2026 confirm that he was paid up to that date.  The date of 05/01/2026 was provided in all further documentation, including welfare certification and Revenue/Payroll submissions. 

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that when the Complainant sought a redundancy payment on 30/01/2026 he had not reached the statutory threshold of 28 days and therefore his claim was void.  The Respondent also rejects the Complainant’s assertion that the counter notice was not valid and failed to meet the 7-day statutory requirement.  The Complainant’s claim was made on 30/01/2026 and the Respondent’s counter claim was issued on 05/02/2026.

It was also submitted that the Complainant was made an offer of an immediate start on 04/02/2026 and this was to resume the same duties and on the same terms and conditions.  This was a permanent role and therefore satisfied the requirement to provide at least 13 weeks work.

It is the Respondent’s position that the Complainant unreasonably refused the offer of employment without providing any reason and stated that he was “proceeding with his redundancy claim”.

In a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent it was noted that the official documentation clearly stated that the lay-off would commence on 05/01/2026.  The Complainant was paid in full up to that date.  The Respondent has acted in good faith at all times in relation to this matter.  The Complainant was regularly informed of the attempts by the Respondent to secure contracts and as soon as work became available the Complainant was invited to return with immediate effect and on the same terms and conditions, including permanent contract, as he previously held.   It is the Respondent’s position that this claim should be rejected as the Complainant made a premature redundancy claim and unreasonably refused the genuine offer of work.

 The Complainant is seeking a redundancy payment by virtue of the fact that he was placed on temporary lay-off from 05/01/2026 until 04/02/2026.  The Complainant’s contract of employment (Section 15) states

“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 and I find that the notice of this lay-off was 12/12/2025.   I am also satisfied, based on the evidence and documentation, that this period of lay-off commenced on 05/01/2026.

The Relevant Law

 The Act at s. 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 Act at s.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 Act as s.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.” 

The parties accept that s.12(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied insofar as it is not disputed that the Complainant was laid off from his employment with the Respondent.  What is disputed is the duration of that period of lay-off.  As noted above I am also satisfied, based on the evidence and documentation, that this period of lay-off commenced on 05/01/2026.

Did the Complainant comply with the provisions of section 12(1)(b)?

The Complainant relies on s.12(1)(a) of the Act 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.   I find that the Complainant’s was not on lay-off for a period of four or more consecutive weeks at the date of service of his notice. 

Despite the early service of notice the Respondent issued a counter-notice to the Complainant as there was a reasonable expectation of the Complainant re-entering the employment and in this case the Complainant was issued with notice that he could resume work with immediate effect on the same terms and conditions, including permanency as he held previously.  I find that this notice by the Respondent was in compliance with section 13 of the Act.  The Complainant refused the offer of employment and did not engage with the Respondent in relation to this offer.  At the hearing the Complainant confirmed that his reason for refusing the offer of the return to work was because he had obtained other employment and he took this up on 02/02/2026.  He confirmed that he was paid more in this role than he was with the Respondent. 

Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 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.”

The Complainant was offered employment on the same terms and conditions as his pre-existing contract, including the permanent nature of that contract. I find that it was unreasonable of the Complainant not to accept this offer and therefore he is not entitled to a redundancy payment. 

CA-00080775-001 – Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

The Complainant is not entitled to a payment of Statutory Redundancy in circumstances where the Respondent had offered suitable and similar employment on exactly the same terms and conditions that he previously enjoyed.

Lay-off. Redundancy payment.  Offer of alternative employment.