Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Quentin  Castles

Carnew Iron Crafts Limited

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-00043779-001

27/04/2021

The complainant was employed as an apprentice sheet metal worker from 31 July 2017 until 27 March 2020.  He was paid at a rate of €460 per week.  The respondent’s workshop has remained closed through the Covid19 crises period.

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant and one witness and three witnesses from the Respondents side all gave evidence under affirmation.

The complainant submitted that he was made redundant on 10 June 2020 when he received a letter indicating that he was being let go. The complainant appealed the employer’s decision that he is not entitled to a redundancy payment and submitted that he is entitled to a redundancy payment of €3100.40

The respondent submitted that the complainant was temporary layoff at the start of the Covid19 period in March 2020 in order to enable him to receive the Pandemic Unemployment Payment.

The respondent submitted that that it had organised for the complaint to continue his apprenticeship with another company when it was no longer possible for him to continue his training due to the retirement of one of the respondent’s employees.

The respondent submitted that in the circumstances, its decision was that the complainant was not entitled to a redundancy payment.

The respondent closed its workshop in March 2020 response to the Covid19 pandemic requirements and placed the complainant on temporary layoff in order that he might avail of the Pandemic Unemployment Payment.  This situation continued until 10 June when the respondent wrote to the complainant to indicate that he was being let go and should make alternative arrangements to finish out his apprenticeship with an alternative employer.

Evidence was given by both parties as to the efforts made by the parties to find another employer for the complainant. I am satisfied that the respondent gave the complainant a ‘lead’ to find an alternative employer, but I find that the respondent did not arrange al alternative employment for the complainant.

The issue of reckonable service was raised at the hearing.  Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 includes some guidance on this matter. Section 7 of the Schedule states that:

Reckonable Service

7. For the purposes of this Schedule, a week falling within a period of continuous employment and during which (or during any part of which) the employee concerned either was actually at work, or was absent therefrom by reason of sickness, a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 , and in respect of which redress has been awarded under section 7 (1) ( a ) or 7 (1) ( b ) of that Act, holidays or any other arrangement with his employer shall, subject to paragraph 8, be allowable as reckonable service.

Accordingly, I find that the period of study undertaken by the applicant during his apprenticeship was an arrangement that was agreed with his employer and accordingly is allowable as reckonable service.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if 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, or

  (b)  the fact that the requirements of that business 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,

Having heard the evidence and the fact that the respondent employer agreed that the complainant had been dismissed as the business had ceased trading in the place where the employee was employed and that his work has ceased, I find that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.  I also find that the reckonable service for the calculation of the redundancy runs from his start date 31 July 2017 until 10 June 2020 but excludes the period the complainant spent on temporary layoff from 27 March 2020 until 10 June 2020.

Having considered all the written and oral submissions and arising from my findings above my decision is to allow the complainants appeal.  Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment for the period of his reckonable service.

Redundancy Payments Act, Reckonable service, appeal allowed.