EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Damien Traynor UD30/2014
MN10/2014
RP13/2014
against
Crosscarn Construction Limited
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 2005
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms M. McAveety
Members: Mr. T. O'Sullivan
Mr O. Nulty
heard this claim at Cavan on 28th January 2015
Representation:
_______________
Claimant: Mr Colm McGovern, Mel Kilrane & Company, Solicitors, Main
Street, Bailieborough, Co Cavan
Respondent: In person
The claim for Unfair Dismissal was withdrawn at the outset of the hearing.
Claimant’s case:
The claimant DT told the Tribunal that he worked for the respondent from September 2003 as a site foreman on a construction site, building a housing scheme. The scheme was completed by 2010 and as a result of the downturn in the economy staff was reduced eventually to four people (two who were the sons of the respondent/directors). Work was mainly confined to extensions up to 2013 and DT ended up doing carpentry work on the director’s family home. One of the sons went to Australia and in mid-September 2013 HB the second son of the respondent/directors told the claimant that he was also going to Australia in October, there was no more work except for a few days carpentry left on the house. HB was the person he took his instructions from. He was told by HB that he would get his redundancy from the Government, an amount of about 10k.
DT immediately began seeking new employment and received a phone call offering him a job. He was told on a Monday to begin the next day. He advised the respondent and said he would await the paperwork. He received an envelope with payslips and pension details but no RP50. When he queried this with the respondent he was told that they could not sign the RP50 and to get legal advice. His solicitor wrote to the respondent on 18th November but received no reply.
Respondent’s case:
NB director of the respondent company told the Tribunal that the claimant had been a good employee. She did have a chat with him about the economy but did not formally give him notice and did not recall any mention of 10k. Her accountant advised them that the claimant had left of his own accord and was not entitled to a redundancy payment.
Asked who the claimant took his instructions from she said it was a small operation and things were just discussed. Asked when was the last time the respondent had employees, she stated that it was “a good while ago”. The company had completed one other job in 2014, it lasted for one month and was completed by the director and a sub-contractor.
Determination:
Having heard and considered the adduced evidence and submitted documentation the Tribunal finds that the cessation of the claimant’s employment with the respondent was as a result of a redundancy.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, the Tribunal finds that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum based on the following details:
Date of Birth:
Date of Commencement: 01 September 2003
Date of Termination: 07 October 2013
Gross Weekly Pay: € 589.33
The Tribunal dismisses the claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts, 1973 to 2005.
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)