ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00036155
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kelly Rattigan | NSR Engineering Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
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-00047412-001 | 26/11/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/07/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
Pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967 (as amended) it is directed that the manner of hearing prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply to any question, dispute, complaint or appeal referred to the Director General under the Redundancy Payments Acts of 1967 – 2014.
I have accordingly been directed by the Director General of the Adjudication services, to hear the within complaint and I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an eligible employee who is found to be redundant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for every year of service (per Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967). The Acts provide for a payment of two weeks gross pay for each year of service. A further bonus week is added to this. An eligible employee is one with 104 weeks of continuous employment with an employer whose position has ceased to exist. The calculation of Gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. Gross pay is the current normal weekly pay including average regular overtime and benefits-in-kind and before tax and PRSI deductions. A Redundancy payment is generally tax free.
A complainant must be able to show a minimum two years (104 weeks) of service in the employment.
Responsibility to pay Statutory Redundancy rests with the Employer. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection that it is unable to pay Statutory Redundancy to an eligible applicant, the Department will make payments directly to that employee and may seek to recover as against the Employer independently. Such claims must be submitted on form RP50 which may be signed by both employer and employee (to be accompanied with a Statement of Affairs).
In the event that an Employer refuses to engage with an employee in this way, it is open to the employee to bring an appropriate complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission.
The Employee must have made a claim for a redundancy payment from an employer by notice and in writing before the expiration of 52 weeks form the date of the cessation of the employment per section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended). The time limit may be extended to 104 weeks where reasonable cause has given rise to the failure to apply and the Adjudication Officer so finds (double check).
RP9 Procedure
An Employee may be laid off or put on short time in response to a change in circumstances which needs to be temporarily addressed by the Employer. An Employer can lay a person off for a temporary period and must give notice and reasons justifying this step. The Employer can also put the Employee on short time (which is defined as a regime where an employee’s hours of work are reduced to less than half of what is normal).
Part A of Form RP9 is usually served by the Employer on the Employee as notice of temporary short time or lay off.
Ideally, a Contract of Employment should reference the entitlement to put an employee on lay off or short time. Otherwise, it is not clear that an Employer can deduct wages per the Payment of Wages Act.
If an employee has been on short time (less than half wages), or been laid off for four or more consecutive weeks, or for a period of six or more weeks within a period of thirteen consecutive weeks, the employee can give Notice in writing of the intention to claim redundancy on the expiry of that thirteen-week period (this is exercised usually under part B of the RP9 Form). This may also be sought not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay off or short time. The Employee must give the employer the notice required or specified in the Contract of Employment or if none exists then must give at least one week’s Notice of intention to claim Redundancy. In such circumstances the Complainant is entitled to Statutory Redundancy but loses the right to Statutory Notice.
There can be no doubt that the Employer has a right to Counter this application but Part C of the RP9 very clearly states that any such counter notice must be in writing and must be given within seven days of service of the employees notice. Also, the Counter Notice should indicate that there will be a commencement of full-time work within the next four weeks of the date of service of the Complainant’s Notice.
A person on lay off may apply for jobseeker’s allowance. The person on short time may be entitled to short time work support for those days he or she is laid off.
Section12 A of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 was inserted by the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020. This temporarily suspended Section 12 of the 1967 Act in respect of an employee who has been laid off or kept on short time due to the effects of measures required to be taken by his or her employer in order to comply with government policy in respect of Covid 19. Such an employee is not entitled to give notice of his/her intention to claim redundancy during the redundancy period. This applied up from March 2020 to September 2021.
Background:
The Complainant was put on lay off at the start of the pandemic. Eventually the Complainant claimed Redundancy by triggering the procedure set out on the RP9 form. This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing is conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public top attend this hearing (unless IR). I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked with the Respondent company as an Accounts Assistant. The Complainant represented herself. The Complainant made an Affirmation and gave evidence on her own behalf. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is an Electrical Contractor with a base in Kinsealy. The Respondent company was represented by it’s Director who gave evidence having made the appropriate affirmation |
Findings and Conclusions:
I haver carefully considered the evidence adduced by the parties herein. The Complainant commenced her Employment with this company in and around 1st of February 2013. When she was laid off due to the pandemic the Complainant was on a gross weekly wage of €615.00 per week. The company closed down on the 31st of March 2020. The Complainant was aware that the Company did re-open thereafter though has no idea the level and amount of work being carried on . There was no communication either way and the Complainant was on the Pandemic unemployment payments for the duration. Mr. Stack says he contacted the Complainant in and around August or September of 2021 to see if she was interested in returning to work. It seems that the Accounts were by then in a state of disarray and the Complainant expressed reluctance to return to the workplace to work her way through what seemed to be an insurmountable amount of work. Her Employer agreed with her and said he would get back to her again. The Complainant did not hear anything further. On the 30th of September 2021 the Complainant became eligible to apply for redundancy and she duly filled in part B of the RP9 form which was correctly served on the Respondent company. This appears to have been served on or about the 1st of October 2021. There can be no doubt that the Employer has a right to Counter this application, but Part C of the of the RP9 very clearly states that any such counter notice must be in writing and must be given within seven days of service of the employees notice. There must also be an assurance that there is an expectation of a resumption of work within four weeks of the Complainant’s notice. The Respondent’s opportunity to confirm a return to the workplace therefore expired on or about the 8th of October 2021. I am satisfied that the Respondent Employer did not communicate with the Complainant in writing within a week of the service of her Notice stating that there would be employment within the next four weeks. It seems to me that the Complainant’s entitlement to look for her Redundancy accrued on the 8th of October. I note that there was some brief communication in the middle of November but by then things had moved on and in any event the Employer’s intention was never clearly stated I appreciate that the Respondent may have been having a difficult time ensuring his business continued to be viable during this time. I also believe that he may have and has always had need of someone with the Complainant’s skill and expertise but by operation of law the Complainant was entitled to claim her Redundancy. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: The employment started: 1st of February 2013 The employment ended: 8th October 2021 Gross weekly wage : €615.00 The Complainant was made aware of the fact that any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952 to 1966. A ceiling of €600.00 applies herein.
|
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00047412-001 – I allow the Complainant’s appeal against her Employer decision and find that she is entitled to an award under theRedundancy Payments Acts based on the following facts: The employment started: 1st of February 2013 The employment ended: 8th October 2021 Gross weekly wage : €615.00
|
Dated: 14th September 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|