ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026793
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Security Guard | Security Company |
Representatives | Séagh Mac Siúrdáin FIOS | Director |
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-00034101-001 | 31/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967following 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 contends that he is entitled to a redundancy payment as the Respondent removed him from his job on a particular site, and failed to offer him reasonable alternative employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked as a static security guard from 28th August 2017 on a contract of employment which stated that he was employed as a full time security guard on a rate of €1,124 per fortnight or €561.10 per week. On 12th January 2020 he was informed that there was no work for him at the site he usually worked. He was given no reason except that the client did not want him there. The Respondent offered him alternative work in Limerick, which was too far from his home, which was in Galway. Alternatively the Respondent offered him work in Galway but at 50% of the hours. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent contends that the offer of work was for both Galway and Limerick and it was reasonable. The Complainant was not dismissed or made redundant from his employment, and therefore was not entitled to redundancy. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In this case, the relevant sections of the Act are as follows: Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides: 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 … (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to – (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind, or for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish”. Section 15 of the Act provides: 15. – (2) An employee … shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if in the period of two weeks ending on the date of dismissal – (a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment, (b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before his dismissal, (c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee, (d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of dismissal, and (e) he has unreasonably refused the offer. |
In this instant case, I note that on 12th January 2020 the Complainant was told there was no work for him at the site in which he worked. The Respondent by email dated 31st January 2020 advised the Complainant: “Further to our meeting at HQ and in order to clarify the reason for you no longer being employed by [the Respondent]..”
From the evidence, I find that Section 7 (2) (b) applies to the Complainant in circumstances where the requirements of the business for him to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed ceased. In relation to Section 15 quoted, and whether the offer of re-engagement constituted a reasonable offer, I note that the Complainant was offered alternative employment with very different and less favourable conditions, one affecting pay and the other involving unreasonable travel. I find that he did not unreasonably refuse the offer.
I find that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy payment based on the following:
4.76 weeks plus 1 bonus week = 5.76 weeks X €561.10 = €3,237.70.
The Complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,237.70.
Decision:
The Complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,237.70.
Dated: 20th October 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Redundancy, no reasonable offer of re-engagement. |