RP119/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                         CASE NO.

EMPLOYEE                                                                                                          RP119/2012

against

EMPLOYER

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Ms P.  McGrath B.L.

Members:     Mr J.  Browne

                     Mr A.  Butler

heard this appeal at Carlow on 27th September 2013

Representation:

_______________

Appellant:        In person

Respondent:    

Determination:

The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence adduced. The appellant is looking for a lump sum redundancy payment arising out of the termination of his employment which occurred on 26^th September 2011.

The appellant commenced his employment with the respondent as a motor mechanic in and around 1990 and thereafter completed 21 years of service with the respondent company.

The respondent have given evidence to the effect that their company policy has always been to retire people who reach the age of 65 and are still in full time employment.

There was no contract of employment to draw this inference from and this is not unusual in circumstances where the employment commenced in 1990, well before the Terms of Employment Information Act, 1994. 

The company handbook was silent on the issue of retirement and the respondent has asked the Tribunal to accept that it was workplace norm, the SIMI norm and were was evidence to the effect that the appellant knew or ought to have known that the retirement age was 65 by reason of the fact that he had attended at least one retirement party for one of his colleagues in such circumstances.

There was an inappropriate attempt to get the appellant to sign a “newly prepared” contract of employment in 2011 which contained a reference to the normal retirement age being 65. The appellant never signed this contract.

The appellant believes that he was told that the employers retirement age was new to the terms and conditions of this employment and that he never would have been expected to know that he was due to retire at 65 before he was told that this was what would happen in the months preceding his birthday. 

The Tribunal finds that the appellant’s employment was terminated due to retirement on the 26^th of September 2011. It is common case and the Tribunal accepts that the issue of redundancy as per the Redundancy Payments Acts was never at issue. The appellant was not let go by reason of the cessation of the workplace, the disappearance of the job or the re-configuration of the work force. Indeed the evidence is that the appellant was replaced and he had a hand in training up his replacement.

The difficulty from the Tribunals point of view is that the appellant does not therefore qualify for a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts. Whether the appellant might have succeeded under the Unfair Dismissal or Equality legislation remains a moot point and the appellant is now out of time for bringing such a claim.

The claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails. 

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)