RPD1813

The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent had been made redundant and found that the Respondent was entitled to receive a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act.

The Case

There is no dispute that the Respondent’s employment terminated on 14th November 2016.

It is common case that the Respondent was employed by the Appellant from June 2009 to the termination of his employment. It was also common case that the Appellant held a contract with a client company in Galway and that contract was lost in late 2016.

The Respondent maintained before the Court that he had worked at a single location in Galway during the entire period of his employment. He stated that following the loss of contract by the employer in late 2016 and a subsequent period of lay off he was asked to work in Dublin for a six-week period. He had responded to that request to advise that he would be unable to take up that work. He stated that he had never sought his P45 but that the Company had issued it to him in November 2016, thereby terminating his employment.

The Appellant accepted before the Court that the offer of six weeks employment in Dublin was not a reasonable offer of alternative employment to the Respondent within the meaning of the Act. The Appellant submitted to the Court that the Respondent had not been furnished with a contract of employment at any time during his employment. The Appellant submitted that the nature of the business was such as to be transient. The Appellant acknowledged to the Court that it could not say how, in the absence of a contract of employment, such a dimension to his employment had been made known to the Respondent or whether it had been made known to him at all. The Appellant accepted that the Respondent had worked at a single location throughout his employment with the Appellant. The Appellant stated to the Court that it was understood that for as long as the Appellant had work in Galway the Respondent would have a job.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent sought his P45 in November 2016 and that it was supplied to him. The Appellant referred to a staff member who it alleged had received the Respondent’s request by phone in 2016 but was unable to have that staff member testify to the Court in that respect.

The Law

The Act provides at Section 7, in relevant part, as follows:

• 7.(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, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

  (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

  • (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of F18 [ four years ] ending on that date.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if F19 for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—
  • (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed,..

• 9. (1) For the purposes of this Part an employee shall, subject to this Part, be taken to be dismissed by his employer if but only if—
  • (a) the contract under which he is employed by the employer is terminated by the employer, whether by or without notice

Findings of the Court

The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, concludes that the Respondent’s employment was terminated by the Appellant following the loss of the contract held by the Appellant at the place where the Respondent had been employed. The Court further finds that no reasonable offer of alternative employment was made by the Appellant to the Respondent. The Court therefore finds that the Appellant terminated the Respondent’s employment by reason of redundancy in November 2016 and that consequently the Respondent is entitled to receive a redundancy payment in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Determination

The complaint is well founded. The Court orders the Appellant to pay the Respondent a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act in respect of his service with the Company from 15^thJune 2009 until 14^thNovember 2016.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Foley
LS______________________
25 October 2018Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.