Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kunabo Mutuaya

Gcb Security & Facilities Ltd.

Representatives

Ann Flynn, SIPTU

 George Bicu

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-00048563-001

09/02/2022

The Complainant seeks a redundancy payment due to the fact that he was laid off for a long period  and was not offered reasonable alternative employment.

The Complainant had service with the Respondent from 25th November 2016.  He was working as a Security Officer at a site in Waterford and the site closed in March 2020 due to Covid.  He availed of Social Security until In June 2021, when he was offered work in Dublin. He accepted that offer and worked 4 shifts of 12 hours.  In July 2021 he was informed by the Respondent that the client had an issue with a window not being closed and no further work was offered to him for this site.  Later that month, the Complainant was offered work at a site in Bray and the Respondent was to confirm with him.  No further confirmation was forthcoming.  Between July and October 2021 SIPTU wrote to the Respondent seeking clarification as to what work the Complainant was being offered or if no work was forthcoming, then redundancy payment should be made.  Before the qualifying period for redundancy, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant offering work in the Waterford area.  There was a vacant site and no building or facilities were on the site.  To this day it is still a vacant site.   At this point the Complainant had not worked for the Respondent since July 2021.  SIPTU wrote to the Respondent on 11th January 2022 with an RP9 form requesting a response within 7 days.  The Respondent replied the following day stating that he had referred the matter to his solicitor and his priority was to get back to SIPTU as soon as possible.  The Complainant nor SIPTU heard anymore from the Respondent.

It is submitted that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment based on service from 25/11/2016 to 11/01/2022 when the RP9 was sent to the Respondent.  The Complainant earned €559 for 48 hour week in his final week of employment.

The Respondent stated that if the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment he is not denying him the payment.  However, he does object to the details of alleged working hours contained in the Complainant’s submission.  The Complainant worked an average of 16 – 20 hours per week, not 48.  His hourly rate was €11.65.  The Company who was the client for the main period of employment went bankrupt and there was no work for the Complainant on that site. He did work there for 3 days a week – for in or around 20 hours.

It is common case that the Complainant was laid off from his employment on 1st July 2021.  There were many attempts by his Union to have the matter clarified if there was work available or if the Complainant was being made redundant.  I note the offer of work in October 2021 did not materialise and effectively the Complainant was without work for the period July 2021 until his Union sought redundancy by way of the RP9 form.  There was no counter claim at that time offering reasonable alternative work by the Respondent.  I accept the Respondent’s evidence that the normal weekly working hours were 20 hours per week.  I find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundant lump sum.

Redundancy, Lay off indefinitely.