EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE,
- appellant RP743/2009
Against
EMPLOYER - respondent
Under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony B.L.
Members: Ms M. Sweeney
Ms. P. Doyle
heard this appeal at Cork on 8th February 2010 and 9th February 2012
Representation:
Appellant(s) :
Respondent(s) :
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Summary of Evidence
The appellant, a tactical merchandiser, sought a redundancy lump sum award based on employment from June 1991 to mid-March 2009 (part of which she had spent as an area manager). Her position was that the amount of hours being offered were so few that it amounted to dismissal by way of redundancy. Others who started with the respondent after she had were getting more hours. She felt hurt and betrayed by the respondent.
The respondent’s position was that there were no set hours of work for any merchandiser as
work was based on client contracts. Owing to the nature of the business, the respondent
sometimes only has short notice of a contract but the respondent tries to give employees as much notice of work as possible.
From either February or March 2009 the claimant went on cerified sick leave and continued to send sick certificates to the respondent. In proceedings before a rights commissioner in September 2009 it was argued on behalf of the claimant and accepted by the rights commissioner that the claimant was an employee. In a letter dated the 6 May 2011the appellant indicated to the respondent company that she was hoping to return around eight to ten weeks later.
Determination
This case came before the Tribunal on three occasions with two adjournments granted by the Division as the parties were engaging in other proceedings and because they were hoping to resolve the matter in settlement talks.
The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced over the course of the hearings. The appellant in her application to the Tribunal indicated that she was made redundant on the 13 March 2009. The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was not made redundant on the 13 March 2009 but that she was unfit for work for a substantial period thereafter.
The appellant’s evidence was that she did not submit an RP9 form to the respondent.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that a redundancy situation did not exist.
Accordingly, the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)