RP921/2012

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                             CASE NO.

EMPLOYEE     -appellant            RP921/2012

Against

EMPLOYER  -respondent

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:        Ms N.  O'Carroll-Kelly B.L.

Members:        Mr J.  Horan

                        Mr N.  Dowling

heard this appeal at Dublin on 13th August 2013

Representation:

_______________

Appellant:       In Person

Respondent:    In Person

Respondent’s Case

The respondent is a language training school in which the appellant was employed as a teacher from 2005.  The appellant originally worked morning hours but due to a downturn in students, moved to teaching evening classes in 2008.  In 2012 due to a lack of students the appellant’s evening class was being discontinued so he was offered a morning class. This offer was made on the 10^th of April 2012 and by letter of the 17^th of April 2012.  The appellant rejected the offer of a morning class as he had prior academic commitments. The appellant lodged a grievance and put forward a career break and parental leave as an alternative, which the respondent could not facilitate.  The appellant was informed during the grievance process that it was not a redundancy situation so he would be resigning if he did not take up the morning hours offered.

Appellant’s Case

The appellant commenced employment in 2005 teaching morning classes, totalling 28 hours per week. In November 2008, due to a downturn in students, he was moved to teaching evening classes totalling 12 hours per week. The appellant assumed and hoped that additional hours would be offered to him. It became clear that they would not be, as a result in April 2010 he commenced a post graduate course requiring him to be available during the day.

In April 2012 the appellant was informed his evening class was no longer available and he was offered hours in the morning. He immediately informed the respondent that he could not work in the mornings due to his academic commitments. He had not been offered a morning class in the previous four years. The respondent asked the appellant to think about the proposal for a week. After a week the appellant returned and made two alternative proposals; a career break for a year or availing of parental leave that he had accumulated. Both proposals were rejected.

The appellant informed the respondent that it was a redundancy situation, to which he was told to accept the morning hours or resign.

Determination

Having carefully considered the evidence adduced, the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant’s position was made redundant and are in no doubt that the mornings hours offered to him do not constitute a reasonable alternative offer of employment under the Acts.

The Tribunal finds that the appellant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement:        1^st August 2005

Date of Termination:               17^th April 2012

Gross Weekly Wage:              €120.00

This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)