RP673/2013, WT171/2013, MN482/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                              CASE NO.

Piotr Kasperzec                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                RP673/2013                                        

                                                                                                                               WT171/2013

                                                                                                                                MN482/2013

against

Denis O’Brien, T/A Glasspak

under

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:    Mr N.  Russell

Members:     Mr J.  Hennessy

                     Ms S.  Kelly

heard this appeal at Thurles on 21^st  November 2014 and 20^th February 2015

Representation:

Appellant: Ms. Liz Murray, SIPTU, Liberty Hall, Eden Quay, Dublin 1

Respondent: No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent and the Tribunal is satisfied that they were properly notified of the hearing.

Appellant’s case:

It was the appellant’s evidence that he initially worked for the respondent up to and including 22^nd March 2013 and that when he reported for work on Monday 25^th March 2013 he was met by his current employer (CG) who informed him that the business had been taken over by them. The appellant continued to work for his new employer in the same premises, doing the same job on the same terms and conditions as previous. The respondent had previously carried out this work on contract to the appellant’s current employer.

Determination:

The Tribunal heard evidence that on Friday the 22^nd of March 2013 the appellant worked his last day for the respondent and on the following Monday was met by a representative of CG who advised that they had taken over the operation and were offering the appellant a position. It appeared from the evidence that CG had previously subcontracted the work to the respondent.   The appellant accepted the position with CG and moved seamlessly on to working for that company on the same terms, in the same location and doing the same work. 

It was subsequently confirmed to the appellant through the National Employment Rights Authority that the respondent itself ceased trading on the 30^th of April 2013.    

Having had due regard to the Transfer of Undertakings, Regulations and case law thereunder the Tribunal is not satisfied that a Redundancy situation arose in this case and, in the circumstances, the Appellant’s claims fail.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

      (CHAIRMAN)