Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Construction Worker

A Construction Sole Trader

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-00029021-001

10/06/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00029021-002

10/06/2019

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 17th August 2015 to 7th September 2018. He claimed that his employment was terminated due to a downturn in work and that he did not receive a redundancy payment.

The complainant stated that he was dismissed from his employment on the grounds of redundancy. He produced a RP50 form signed by the respondent which outlined the date of notice, the proposed date of termination as well as the redundancy amount to which he was entitled.

He also alleged that the respondent made him aware of work available elsewhere but claimed that this was after he had received his notice of termination.

The respondent claimed that the complainant’s position was not redundant because he, the respondent, had been offered work as a sub-contractor with another contractor, Company A, in September 2018 and therefore had work for the complainant, which meant that a redundancy situation did not arise. When asked why he signed the RP50 form, acknowledging that the complainant’s position was redundant, the respondent claimed that he was badly advised and should not have done so.

CA-00029021-001:

Preliminary Point:

As an incorrect respondent was named on the complaint form, I exercised my discretion under Section 39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 to amend the name of the respondent.

Finding:

There was a dispute between the respondent and the complainant over whether or not there was a down turn in work. While the complainant stated that there was no work available for him and that his position was therefore redundant, the respondent alleged that he had secured work for him and his employees as a subcontractor for another building contractor, Company A.

What is not in dispute however is that the respondent signed a RP50 form, which I am satisfied represents the complainant’s notification of redundancy. While the respondent stated that he only completed this form because he was badly advised, this is scarcely credible given that it is a very straightforward form which sets out both the date of notice of termination as well as the proposed date of termination of employment. I am therefore of the view that the respondent signed this form because he believed at the time that the complainant’s position was redundant.

I note also however that further to this notification of redundancy, but prior to the termination date, he made the complainant aware on 3rd September 2019 that he had obtained further work with Company A. Having regard to the provisions of Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, there is no entitlement to a redundancy payment in circumstances where further work is made available to the employee prior to the termination date and where the offer of such work has been unreasonably refused.

CA-00029021-002:

This was a duplicate complaint and is identical to CA-00029021-001 above. No finding is therefore made in respect of this complaint.

CA-00029021-001:

Given that the respondent offered alternative work and the complainant unreasonably refused the offer of employment, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00029021-002:

See above.