ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005801

Complaint for Resolution:

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The Complainant has been employed as an Architect with the Respondent Company since 22^nd October 2007

The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 8^th November 2016 in relation to his claim for payment of his redundancy entitlement.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainant was called to a meeting on 31^st August 2016 with two named employees at which he was informed that the Company had no money and on the same date he received an email from the Respondent stating they did not have the funds to pay his salary. A Named employee of the Company informed him that as he was nearing completion of his projects they would have to terminate his employment and unless additional work could be obtained his last date of employment would be 30^th September 2016. The Complainant was told he would be paid his redundancy payments and that as they could not meet his redundancy entitlements he was to be placed on lay-off.

The Complainant stated there was a discussion in relation to the Complalnant seeking alternative employment.

The Complainant did receive a letter dated 31^st August 2016 – copy provided and his last day of employment was 30^th September 2016. He stated that on 30^th September 2016 he had a meeting with the named Respondent during which the Respondent seemed to have changed his mind and stated the letter of 31^st August 2016 referred to lay-off only. There was a discussion in relation to his annual leave entitlements where the Respondent stated that he had an entitlement to 16.5 days but had taken 22 days and this was deducted from his final wages.

The Complainant informed the Respondent on 10^th October 2016 that he had obtained employment with a named Employer and seeking a reference. On 25^th October 2016 the Complainant emailed the Respondent seeking confirmation of his redundancy and his P45. The Respondent emailed the Complainant on 25^th October 2016 requesting him to return to work for a four month period.

Summary of Respondent’s Position.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was issued with a letter dated 31^st August 2016 stating that they no longer had an adequate flow of work and placing him on 4 weeks’ notice of a temporary lay-off to take effect from 30^th September 2016. This letter also stated that in the interim the Respondent would continue to seek projects for him. The Complainants last day at work was 30^th September 2016 when he commenced temporary lay-off.

The Complainant was not made redundant or placed on permanent lay-off.

Preliminary Issue.

Section 7 (5) of the Act defines the “requisite period” as 104 week’s continuous employment of the employee by the employer, who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short-time.

Section 7 (1) of the Act provides as follows –

1. An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall…..be entitled to payment of moneys which shall be known….as a redundancy payment provided…..

Section 7 (3) provides

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee shall be taken as having been laid o off or kept on short-time for the minimum period if he has been laid off or kept on short-time for a period of four or more consecutive weeks…….

The evidence was that the Complainant was given four weeks’ notice of a temporary lay-off by letter dated 31^st August 2016. This 4 week notice ended on 30^th September 2016 when the Complainant commenced temporary lay-off. The evidence was that the Complainant notified the Respondent that he had commenced employment with a named Employer on 10^th October 2016.

On the basis of the evidence I declare that the complaint is not well founded as the Complainant was not on lay-off for a period of four consecutive weeks as required by Section 7 (3) of the Act.

Rosaleen Glackin

Adjudication Officer

Date: 10/04/2017