ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037178

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Sandra Blakeney	Verve Marketing Limited

Representatives

Richard Grogan, Solicitor

David O’Riordan of Sharwin O’Riordan Solicitor

Ronan Traynor, Finance Director

Barry Traynor, CEO

Laura Kenny, HR BP

Complaint(s):

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-00048544-001	07/02/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/11/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline Reidy

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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.

I also explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 and the parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC would disclose their identities as the parties would be named.

I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence both in written submissions and oral submissions and evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant, Sandra Blakeney issued RP9 to the Respondent to request redundancy and she alleges that no reply was received within the timeline of 7 days therefore she claims that she is entitled to redundancy. The Respondent say that she was in other employment at this time so that is not a valid request for redundancy so her claim should fail.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s representative Richard Grogan Solicitor stated they met the requirement of Redundancy Act by following legal requirements of RP9 and he stated Ms Blakeney does not have to be unemployed once she meets requirement of RP9.

The Complainant confirmed she has been on layoff since June 2020 to September 2020 and then got a new role with a new employer from September 2020 and still in employment there.

Mr Grogan stated that they confirmed the claim form date of employment ending was incorrect by saying 20 December 2021 and should be amended to state June 2020 and he said that the same applies to the RP9 form. The RP9 was issued in December 2021. In that form the Complainant stated she was on lay off from 13 June 2020 to 20 December 2021. He said they were entitled to re-enter these claims for adjudication as this specific claim had not previously been heard by the WRC.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated there were layoffs in June 2020. In July 2020 a number of claims were issued and a WRC hearing was heard and the Complainant at that hearing withdrew two of these claims initially presented at that time including an Unfair Dismissal and a Redundancy claim on 26 July and the WRC adjudicator preceded after that hearing to issue a decision.

The Respondent stated the Complainant, Ms Sandra Blakeney received another role after a few months of being on lay off so she terminated her own contract.

The Respondent stated the Complainant has not worked for Verve Marketing Ltd since September 2020 as she started a new role at that time.

The Respondent stated the RP9 form Complainant’s implying she is an employee of the Respondent company. However, she was not an employee of the company at that time.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 7(1) of the Act states:

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 provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or, had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date.

In the circumstances of this case and based on the evidence before me the key issue to consider is was the Complainant employed at the time she issued the RP9 requesting redundancy. The Respondent state that the Complainant was not employed by Verve Marketing Ltd at the time of her claim as she had got another role.

I note the Complainant issued the RP9 in December 2021 which she signed requesting redundancy and confirmed she was on lay off when she was employed by an alternative new employer and on that basis, I find she was not on lay off. In that form the Complainant stated she was on lay off from 13 June 2020 to 20 December 2021 however she got a new role with a new employer from September 2020 and still in employment there. The Complainant was not available for work at that time.

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.

Based on the evidence presented to me the Complainant was employed at the time she submitted her RP9 claiming she was on lay off and requested redundancy. However, she was working with another company from September 2020 so her claim to request redundancy does not stand as she was not on lay off or available for work at the time with the employer she made that claim to.

The claim is not well founded based on the evidence provided, therefore this claim fails.

Dated: 11th April 2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline Reidy

Key Words: