Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr Gerard Cronin

Premier Broadband Limited

Representatives

Not represented

Not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014

CA-00047433-001

1/12/2021

The complainant worked for the respondent from 1st February 2018 to 31st March 2020. Arising from the COVID pandemic, he was informed that there was no work and that he would be contacted when the restrictions eased. The parties were in regular contact over the early stages of the pandemic and discussed the prospect of a return to work when restrictions lifted. The first discussion and communications on redundancy took place in or around July 2020. In November 2021, the complainant again sought a redundancy payment. Towards the end of 2021, the complainant tried unsuccessfully to contact the respondent. He then referred the complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission which were received on 1st December 2021.

The complainant commenced employment on 1st February 2018 and was placed on lay-off from 31st March 2020. The complainant brought a copy of his last pay slip dated 3rd April 2020 which showed a gross payment of €958. He was aware that not all staff were on lay-off and there was regular contact with the respondent on a date for a possible return to work. Having been on lay-off for a considerable period, in or around July 2020, the complainant brought matters to a head and sought payment of redundancy. On 27th July 2020, the respondent offered him a return to a one-day week with effect from 4th August 2020. This short-time option was not taken up by the complainant as it was not feasible or practical due to the significant travel to the workplace. The respondent was aware of this, as when working a 5-day week prior to COVID, he had planned for overnight lodgings due to the extensive travel for the complainant.

There was limited contact between the parties during 2021. In November 2021, the complainant again requested a redundancy payment from the respondent. As the respondent did not respond, the complaints were referred to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that he was notified of the hearing date and venue.

Although there was a temporary suspension of redundancies from March 2020 to September 2021 due to COVID, it is evident that the complainant sought redundancy in July 2020 and again in November 2021.

The respondence did reply to the earlier July 2020 redundancy request by offering a one-day week. Although section 12 of the Redundancy Act does allow an employer to contest liability for a redundancy payment by an employee on lay-off, this can only be done when they reasonably expect that 13-weeks work can be provided within 4-weeks of the date of the claim for redundancy.

The respondent in this case, did not fulfil this requirement in July 2020 and again in November 2021, when the complainant sought a redundancy payment.

I am satisfied that this is a genuine redundancy situation due to correspondence of 31st March 2020 and 5th June 2020 from the respondent outlining the reasons for lay-off. Also, despite the complainant requests to return to work, he has not been provided with work since 31st March 2020.

I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012 based on the following criteria:

-Date of commencement of employment 1st February 2018

-Date of termination 30th November 2021

-Gross weekly wage €958 which is capped for redundancy purposes at €600

-Non-reckonable break in service from 1st April 2020 – 30th November 2021

The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.    

Redundancy, Lay-off