Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Louise  Deane

Protec Autospares Ltd

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00048062-001

09/01/2022

The complainant had been on layoff since March 2020 due to the Covid 19 Pandemic and had been formally offered a redundancy payment in writing which was not ultimately made to her.

She gave direct evidence to the hearing on affirmation.

The complainant says that she began employment with the company, or more specifically a predecessor company in either the first or second week of July 2007.

At some stage in 2009 the company changed its name to its current name of Protec Autospares, but the complainant says that there had been uninterrupted continuity in the operation of the business.

There was no take over or change in personnel and the business continued as it had done before.

She stated that she had not been given any fresh documentation in relation to her contract terms and in every respect the business continued as if nothing had changed.

She said that she remained in contact with her employer on a regular basis throughout the period of temporary lay off and received a letter from them every month essentially stating a holding position but with a precise date for her return to work remaining in doubt.

She triggered the statutory provision on the basis that there appeared to be no change in the position and applied for redundancy in October 2021 via the RP77 form.

The redundancy was accepted by the employer in November 2021 and an agreed amount of €15,900 was settled upon and confirmed in writing by the company on 30th November 2021.

Initially the respondent advised the redundancy settlement would be received within seven days of her signed agreement.

Then, on December 22nd, 2021, an email was received stating that they would not be paying redundancy in a lump sum and instead offered a monthly payment of the agreed amount over the period of one year.

The respondent also requested that that the complainant sign a non-disclosure agreement.

The complainant commented on a contract of employment which was submitted by the respondent to the hearing noting that she had never seen the document before. Also, while it had her correct PPS number it had incorrect details of her birthdate and the signature on the document bore no resemblance to her signature. (She provided a sample of her signature at the hearing).

The respondent’s representative attended due to the non-availability of another senior manager and was not in a position to give direct evidence on most of the matters referred to in the complainant’s submission.

He said that a fresh offer of a redundancy was on the table which was lower than that previously put to the complainant, but his understanding was that this was based on a calculation of the complainant’s service from the date of the change in 2009 in the respondent’s branding referred to above.

This is a relatively straightforward decision.

The complainant triggered her option to have either her return to work or redundancy confirmed under the Redundancy Payments Act as the period of temporary lay-off had been going on for six or seven months at the time she did so.

While it appears to have been done reluctantly the respondent acknowledged her right not to be strung along indefinitely and offered her a redundancy payment.

What happened next suggests that the respondent thought better of the offer and, in addition to a proposed schedule of payments also sought to attach conditions to it which are entirely without justification.

It is not clear either on what basis the redundancy payment lump sum was calculated.

The correct formula on which redundancy payment is to be calculated is very well known not just to employment law practitioners or HR professionals but to most accountants and bookkeepers who deal with such matters.

It is a simple matter of calculating the start date and finish date, discounting any periods which are not reckonable and applying the formula which is contained in the Redundancy Payments Acts of two weeks’ pay per year of service plus a further week, capped at €600 per week.

The respondent’s attempt to apply a payment schedule or impose any other conditions in respect of the payment was entirely wrong.

The complainant was uncertain as to her start date which she thought was the first or second week of July 2007. The respondent was not able to assist with this.

Therefore, for the avoidance of any doubt I find that the complainant’s starting date was July 2nd   2007 and that she remained in continuous employment until March 31st, 2020, when she was laid off.

She is entitled to a redundancy payment calculated based on these start and finish dates and her continuous service in accordance with the provisions in the Redundancy Payments Acts, to be paid in a single lump sum.

Complaint CA-00048082-001 is well founded and the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment calculated based on her continuous service from July 2nd   2007 until March 31st, 2020, in accordance with the provisions in the Redundancy Payments Acts,1967-2014 to be paid in a single lump sum.

Redundancy