EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPE` AL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE, RP744/2009
- appellant
against
EMPLOYER -respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. K.T. O'Mahony BL
Members: Ms. M. Sweeney
Ms. P. Doyle
heard this appeal in Cork on 8 February 2010, 13 June 2011 and 9 February 2012
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
and
Respondent(s):
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
The appellant, a merchandiser, sought a redundancy lump sum award based on employment from March 1991 to mid-March 2009. Her position was that the amount of hours being offered
was so few that it amounted to dismissal by way of redundancy. The redundancy claim was lodged with the Tribunal on 16 March 2009.
The respondent’s position was that there were no agreed set hours of work for any merchandiser as this was based on client contracts. Because of the nature of the business, contracts are often received by the respondent with very little notice. The respondent had agreed with the appellant that it would give her as much notice as possible.
Correspondence between the parties dated March 2009 indicates the appellant was unfit for work at that time. A letter dated the 5 May 2011 from the appellant informed the respondent company that she intended to return to work as soon as her doctor certified her fit. In October 2011 the appellant indicated that she was resigning from the respondent.
Determination
This case came before the Tribunal on three occasions with two adjournments having been granted by the Tribunal as the parties’ were engaging in other proceedings in the Labour Relations Commission.
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced by the appellant 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 and as evidenced in correspondence between the parties including medical certificates the appellant was not made redundant at that time and was unfit for work for a period up to May 2011. In her oral evidence to the Tribunal the appellant recalled returning to work at some point but could not confirm on what date.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal finds that a redundancy situation did not exist at the relevant time. Furthermore, having considered the disputed evidence on the issue, the Tribunal finds on the balance of probability the appellant did not submit the RP9 form to the respondent.
Accordingly, the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)