EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Martin Kane RP532/2013
against
SIAC Roofing and Cladding Limited
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms. S. Behan BL
Members: Mr. P. Casey
Mr. O. Wills
heard this appeal in Cork on 11 September 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
No legal or trade union representation
Respondent(s):
Mr Conor O’Connell,
Construction Industry Federation,
Construction House,
4 Eastgate Avenue,
Little Island,
Cork
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This claim comes before the Employment Appeals Tribunal, pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended.
The Claimant was employed as a roofer/tiler with the Respondent since the 12th April 2006, during which time he worked in various locations to include Dublin, Cork and Belgium. The Claimant had previously been laid off for short periods of time in 2010 and for a period of two weeks in 2012.
The Claimant was placed on temporary layoff on the 15th March 2013 and completed a RP9 Redundancy Claim Form on the 19th March 2013.
The entitlement of the Appellant to apply for redundancy is disputed by the Respondent on the basis that he did not have a valid claim for redundancy as he was not laid off for a continuous period of four weeks prior to his claim.
It was further submitted that the subsequent claim for redundancy was replied to by the company confirming that work was available for him.
The relevant legislation is set out in Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as substituted by Section 11 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971, which provides that:
(1) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment by reason of having been signed off or kept on short time unless-
(a) He has been laid off or kept on short time for four or more consecutive weeks, or, within a period of thirteen weeks, for a series of six or more weeks of which not more than three were consecutive, and
(b) after the expiry of a relevant period of lay- off or short -time mentioned in Paragraph (a) and not later than four seeks after the cessation of the layoff or short time, he gives to his employer notice (In this part referred to as a Notice of Intention to Claim) in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short- time.
(2) Where after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short- time mentioned in Sub-section (1) (a) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short- time, an employee to whom that Sub-section applies, in lieu of giving to his employer a Notice of Intention to Claim, terminates his contract of employment, either by giving him the Notice hereby required or, if none is so required, by giving him not less than one week’s notice in writing of intention to terminate the contract, the notice so given, shall, for the purposes of this Part and of Schedule 2 , be deemed to be a Notice of Intention to Claim, given in writing to the employer by the employee on the date on which the Notice is actually given”.
The Tribunal finds after considering the evidence and having particular regard to Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as substituted by Section 11 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971, that the claim for redundancy payment, namely the RP9 Redundancy Claim Form, which was completed on the 19th March 2013, did not satisfy the criteria as set out by Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as substituted by Section 11 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971, in that the Claimant had not been laid off for a period of four or more consecutive weeks at which time he gave the Respondent notice in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of the layoff.
Accordingly, the claim must fail in the circumstances.
Sealed: The Employment Appeals Tribunal
Signed this day of 2014
___________________________________
Chairman: Sinéad Behan, B.L.