Correcting Order
EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Joseph Hennessy, appellant RP403/2013
Against
Michael Feeney T/A Feeney Electrical & Alarm, respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL
Members: Mr G. Mc Auliffe
Ms M. Mulcahy
heard this appeal at Dublin on 9th April 2014
Determination
This Order corrects the original Order dated the 15th April 2014 and should be read in conjunction with that Order.
The respondent’s name should read Michael Feeney T/A Feeney Electrical & Alarm and not Feeney Electrical & Alarm as stated in the original Order.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This______________________
(Sgd.______________________
(CHAIRMAN)
EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
Joseph Hennessy, appellant RP403/2013
Against
Feeney Electrical & Alarm, respondent
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms N. O'Carroll-Kelly BL
Members: Mr G. Mc Auliffe
Ms M. Mulcahy
heard this appeal at Dublin on 9th April 2014
Representation:
_______________
Appellant(s):
Mr Killian O'Brien, Bowler Geraghty, 2 Lower Ormond Quay,
Dublin 1
Respondent(s):
Mr John Nolan, John Nolan & Co, Carraig Oscair, Kilcullen Rd, Naas, Co Kildare
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
Determination
The Tribunal have considered all of the evidence adduced during the hearing together with the documentation submitted.
The appellant commenced working with the respondent in November, 1998. He was placed on lay off on the 27th May, 2011. An RP 9 form was not served on the appellant. The respondent stated that he did not have any work for the appellant until early 2012. The appellant made a request for redundancy in or around September, 2011 during the period of lay off. He signed an RP 50 form and gave it to the Respondent. After that request the appellant was of the belief that the respondent was processing his redundancy payment. When it came to his attention that the respondent had taken no action in relation to the Redundancy, he served him with an RP9. That was done in January, 2013.
The Respondent took issue with the fact that the appellant was working during the period of lay off. He believed that he was carrying out work for his clients. He stated that it was for that reason that he didn’t offer him work in early 2012 when work became available. The Tribunal find that the appellant is entitled to work during the period of lay- off and there were no contractual term in being, preventing him from working for anyone who sought his services.
The Tribunal find that a redundancy situation existed and that the appellant did invoke his right to claim redundancy pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007.
The appellant’s claim for Redundancy succeeds based on the following criteria:
Date of birth
Date employment commenced 16 November 1998
Date employment ended 27 May 2011
Gross weekly pay €838.11
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment during the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.
A weekly ceiling of €600.00 applies to all payments made from the Social Insurance Fund.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)