ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020533
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00027111-001 | 15/03/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00027113-001 | 15/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Projects and Administrator. He was employed from 22nd June 2016 to 12th February 2019. He initially worked full time and from 1st February 2018 he worked 16 hours per week over two days. He has sought statutory redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that he was in continuous employment from 22nd June 2016 to 12th February 2019. He initially worked full time and then from 1st February 2018 he worked 16 hours per week. He was given two fixed term contracts. At the conclusion of his second fixed term contract which was due to end on 2nd February 2019 he was offered alternative employment. However, this was not a suitable alternative employment as he was being offered the 16 hours spread over five days rather than two days. This did not suit him. He did not get redundancy payment. He was told that this was because he was on a fixed term contract and he had been offered alternative employment. He is claiming his statutory entitlements. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that the organisation had undergone considerable change and had to cope with funding difficulties. They stated that the Complainant was on fixed term contract but accept that he had continuous employment. They did not believe that he was entitled to redundancy because he was on a fixed term contract. Also, they had offered him the same hours of work spread over five days. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that it was accepted that the Complainant had continuous employment. I find that he had the service to qualify for redundancy if it applied. I find that he was working a 16-hour week at the time that his contract ended. I note that he had been working the 16 hours over two days, but he was offered the same hours spread over five days. I find that this was not an offer of suitable alternative employment. I find that his position ceased to exist. I find that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy. I find that the Complainant worked 16 hours per week, he was paid €295.38 per week, his commencement date was 22nd June 2016 and the termination date was 12th February 2019. |
I find that any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I have decided that this claim is well founded.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant statutory entitlements as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Acts.
|
Dated: 12/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Non-payment of redundancy |