RP582/2014

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                             CASE NO.

Jonathan Merriman – appellant                                                                     RP582/2014

Against

Clive Daly T/A CP Motordevelopments – 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 A. O'Mara

                        Mr S. Mackell

heard this appeal at Dublin on 8th September 2015

Representation:

_______________

Appellant(s):              In person

Respondent(s):           Mr Carthage Conlon

Michael E. Hanahoe, Solicitors, 21 Parliament Street, Dublin 2

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The fact of dismissal was in dispute. The respondent gave evidence. The appellant was initially hired as an apprentice panel beater on 9^th September 2007. He continued to be employed following the completion of his apprenticeship in November 2012. In July 2013 while the appellant was on annual leave he came to the workplace and asked the respondent for a pay increase. The respondent explained that he could not afford to pay him more and the appellant said ‘well you’re making me redundant then’ which the respondent disputed and confirmed that there was work for him. The appellant never returned to work after that conversation. The appellant had already taken his tools from the workplace prior to his leave. The appellant was not replaced. Two other employees continued in employment.

The appellant called in a few times after that and sent a RP77 form to the respondent. The appellant came to the workplace with a different form. The respondent did not know what it was but he signed it. He thought it was to help the appellant get a State payment. This was an RP50 form.

Summary of Appellant’s Case:

The appellant gave evidence that in July 2013 he was applying for a mortgage and needed payslips, which he had not received during his employment, and went to his employer to request these. The appellant received cash payments of €450.00 per week. The respondent said it would cost him more money to issue the appellant with payslips and if he would not continue then he was letting him go. The appellant had not asked for a pay rise. He had difficulty claiming a social welfare payment as the respondent had not paid his PRSI contributions. He received his P60s for 2011, 2012 & 2013 at the same time. His P45 showed a weekly average of €400.00 gross per week. He had been informed by the Citizens’ Information Bureau that the State would pay the redundancy payment. He told his employer this and his employer was happy to sign the form. The appellant also produced a compliment slip written by the employer which stated ‘to whom it may concern [the appellant] is no longer an employee here due to financial situations since July 2013’ and this was signed by the respondent.

Determination:

There was a conflict of evidence in this case and the Tribunal must decide whether a redundancy situation took place. On balance, given the existence of the signed RP50 form, the compliment slip in the respondent’s handwriting and the fact that the appellant was not replaced, the Tribunal finds that a redundancy situation did occur in this instance. Accordingly he is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, based on the following information:

Date of Birth:                        

Commencement Date:                        9^th September 2007

Termination Date:                  12^th July 2013

Weekly Gross Pay:                 €400.00

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)