EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Denis Ahern
RP301/2015
against
Bride View Developments Limited
under
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr K. Buckley
Members: Mr D. Hegarty
Mr D. McEvoy
heard this appeal at Cork on 22nd September, 2016
Representation:
Appellant: Daly Derham Donnelly Solicitors, 1a Washington St West,
3-4 Hanover Place, Cork
Respondent: Managing Director in person
Appellant’s case:
The appellant told the Tribunal that he began work with the respondent as their financial accountant in May 2005. There were 33 employees but due to the downturn in the economy in 2008/2009 NAMA were appointed to the respondent company. By 2014 the respondent was down to three people and as financial controller the appellant was asked to calculate redundancy packages on an ongoing basis for employees, including himself. He was told by the director that “the show was over” and that he should be seeking alternative employment.
The appellant said that the relationship with his employer had been good but around July/August 2014 things changed. His employer seemed stressed and angry, he was reviewing the appellants work on a daily basis and moved into his office. The appellant asked for time off to do interviews and took it that he was on notice of redundancy.
He got a job offer in October while the respondent was on holidays so he calculated his redundancy entitlement and sent an e-mail to his employer asking how and when he would be paid. He did use a heading “notice of resignation” but said he did not resign. When the respondent spoke with him on Monday 29th October he told the appellant that redundancy would not be paid and that the direction came from PH (financial operations monitor at NAMA)
Respondent’s case:
DOM, director of the respondent company said that he concurred with a lot of what the appellant had told the Tribunal but disagreed that he was ever told he would receive a redundancy payment. He said that NAMA did not envisage him leaving, he was the accountant and there would still be work there for him, even to this day. He was always included in the figures produced but that was because NAMA wanted to know every variable. DOM said that he took the request to NAMA but was told by PH that they had taken legal advice on the situation and would not be paying a redundancy payment to the appellant.
Determination:
The Tribunal finds that it was reasonable for the appellant to assume (in circumstances where he was asked to calculate his redundancy) that he was being made redundant. The respondent was down to three employees and was aware that the appellant was actively seeking alternative employment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds the appellant is entitled to his statutory redundancy and under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007, and awards a redundancy lump sum based on the following details:
Date of Commencement: 23 May 2005
Date of Notice: ----------------
Date of Termination: 22 October 2014
Gross Weekly Pay: €903.85
This award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. It should be noted that a statutory weekly ceiling of €600.00 currently applies to payments from the Social Insurance Fund.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)