RP563/2013

 EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Ms B. Glynn

Members:     Mr B. O’Carroll

                     Ms H. Henry

heard this appeal at Roscommon on 24 September 2013 

Representation:

Appellant: 

Respondent:

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:

The appellant was employed, initially as a roofer, and later as a foreman from April 1998 in the respondent’s roofing contracting business. The employment was uneventful until the autumn of 2012 when the appellant’s wages began to be delayed in payment.

The appellant was laid off from mid-November 2012. On 7 January 2013 he met a director (AD) of the respondent in order to ask about the availability of work. It was the appellant’s position that at this meeting AD told him that there was no immediate work for him as things were quiet. The appellant advised AD that as his wife was due to give birth on 20 January 2013 he told AD that he would not be available for work in the two weeks following 20 January. On 18 January 2013 AD phoned the appellant to offer him work from 21 January 2013. As per the appellant’s conversation with AD on 7 January the appellant was unable to accept the offer of work.

Not having been offered any further work by the respondent the appellant served form RP9 on the respondent, in order to claim a redundancy lump sum payment by reason of having been laid off in excess of four consecutive weeks, in April 2013. When the appellant checked with the respondent’s accountant (RA) after a week RA knew nothing about the form RP9.

The appellant served a second RP9 on 10 May 2013 by hand to RA. He received no further offers of work from the respondent.

Determination:

Neither of the personnel of the respondent who had contact with the appellant while he was laid off was tendered as witnesses by the respondent. In those circumstances the appellant’s version of the events relevant to his appeal is uncontroverted. It was asserted on behalf of the respondent that the appellant had worked for another employer while he was laid off. He was perfectly entitled to do that if the respondent, as was the case here, had no work for him. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant is entitled to a lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 in accordance with the following criteria.

There was a period of non-reckonable service, by reason of lay off, from 21 November 2012 until 10 May 2013.

It should be noted that payments from the Social Insurance fund are limited to a maximum of €600-00 per week.  This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005 during the relevant period.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)