Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tomasz  Nawrot

Hillbilly's Distribution Limitied

Representatives

Immigrant Advice Bureau

 Self-represented

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-00043044-001

12/03/2021

This case consists of one complaint under The Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

The Complainant worked for the Respondent company for four years. It is his case that in March 2020, he was laid off due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It is his case that by May 2020, other employees had returned to the job site, but that he was not invited back, and he is seeking a redundancy payment. The Complainant’s representative separately advanced the argument in her written submission that the Complainant was dismissed on March 16th, 2020.

The claim was denied by the Respondent company. It submits that it neither dismissed the Complainant nor made his job redundant.

It is the company’s position that that all employees including the Complainant were invited back to work (with managers returning within three weeks of the initial lockdown and everyone else very shortly thereafter), and that the Complainant declined to return to work on the basis that he had child-minding duties and was in receipt of the PUP payment. The Respondent submits that it was then and remains (at the time of the hearing, more than two years later) short-staffed.

This complaint was filed on 12/03/2021. There is an RP50 form which also bears the same date.

In attendance at the hearing were:

For the Complainant

Olga Shevchenko, Immigration Advice Bureau, Complainant’s representative.

Tomasz Nawrot, the Complainant.

For the Respondent

Mr. Michael Grace, owner of the Respondent company. He put forward the case on behalf of the Respondent company and gave evidence himself as well.

Other witnesses for the Respondent:

JD – financial comptroller of the Respondent company

CN – warehouse manager, at the Respondent company

DK – warehouse operative, at the Respondent company

The Complainant’s representative made a written submission on September 12th 2022.

The key points raised in the written submission were:

1.       The Complainant was dismissed on March 16th 2022 and was informed of his dismissal on that date.

2.       In May 2020, the Complainant went into his place of work “to check the situation.” “However, the manager informed him that all employees were dismissed.”

3.       The Complainant wanted to speak to JD about a redundancy payment, but the manager informed him that JD was not at work that day. The Complainant returned to his place of work a few days later. JD informed him that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment.

4.       The Complainant emailed the Respondent company in respect of a redundancy payment in February 2021. JD emailed him back on March 3rd 2021 again informing him that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment.

The Law:

5.       The Complainant submits that he meets the criteria to be eligible for a redundancy payment under s.4 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, i.e. he has more than 104 weeks service of fully insurable employment and is over the age of 16.

6.       The Complainant submits that s.29 of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 temporarily reduced the scope of operation of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, making employees ineligible to apply for redundancy payments during the emergency period. However, the government introduced the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Act in 2022.

7.       The Complainant submits that the purpose of the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Act 2022 is to ensure that employees who missed out on reckonable service for statutory redundancy entitlement due to Covid-19 related temporary lay-off between March 13th, 2020 and January 31st 2022 are not disadvantaged.

At the hearing, the Complainant gave evidence on his own behalf, under oath.

He said that he started work for the Respondent company in January 2016, but he had no contract and no terms of employment. He said that between January and March 2020 he was working in the warehouse, that he was making deliveries for Hillbilly’s, and that he travelled between Cork and Dublin, as part of his job. He said in March 2020, the pandemic started, and everyone was laid off due to the pandemic as the Respondent business had to close because of the pandemic. He was in receipt of the PUP payment. He gave evidence that other employees returned to work but that he was not invited back.

He said in May 2020 he went into Hillbilly’s because he found a new job, that he wanted to let them know in person and give them two weeks’ notice. He said: “I need a job. I need money.” “I tried to speak to [JD].” The Complainant said that he emailed and got no response.

On cross examination:

It was put to the Complainant that CN, one of the warehouse managers, had asked him to come back to work. It was put to him that the entire business was shut down at the start of Lockdown 1, and that everyone was subsequently contacted and asked to come back to work. It was put to him that both CN (one of the warehouse managers) and DK (a warehouse operative) had asked him to come back to work. The Complainant denied this.

It was put to him that initially the business had returned with a skeleton staff (approximately three weeks after the initial lockdown), and then shortly thereafter Hillbilly’s was back operational, and that everybody was invited back to work; and that, in fact, the business was short-staffed. It was put to him that it was his decision, but he had not come back and that the reason he had not come back was that he had childminding duties, specifically he was minding his girlfriend's child while she was working. The Complainant denied this characterisation of events. He denied that he was invited back to work. It was put to him that he was in receipt of the PUP payment. He agreed with that.

The Complainant’s representative’s final remarks:

She cited the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. She said that, in March 2020, there were no layoff forms; that the Complainant had had no choice, that he had no contract of employment, that he was not aware of how he was to notify his employer. She quoted Section 4 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and said that an employee is entitled to redundancy; that the Complainant was in fully insurable employment. She said that he got a new job on June 2nd, 2020.

There was some disparity between the Complainant’s case and what his representative said on his behalf. The Complainant’s representative appears to have filed the case on the basis that the Complainant was dismissed on March 16th, 2020. However, the Complainant gave evidence that he went into his employer in order to give them two weeks’ notice in May 2020. At the hearing, mindful that English was not the Complainant’s first language, the Adjudication Officer sought clarification, in relation to the Complainant’s evidence, as there appeared to be some distance between his evidence and the arguments that the Complainant’s representative was advancing on his behalf. The Complainant then contradicted his earlier evidence, saying it “never happened.”

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, requested that a Social Welfare statement be produced covering the relevant time-period, within seven days of the hearing. This was submitted within the required time-frame, on behalf of the Complainant. The Social Welfare statement produced covered the time period March 16th, 2020 to June 10th, 2020 and it indicates that the Complainant was in receipt of the PUP payment throughout the relevant time period.

Mr. Michael Grace, the owner of the Respondent company, presented the case on behalf of the Respondent company. The Respondent company called four witnesses on its behalf, included Mr. Grace himself.

The first witness for the Respondent: CN – A Warehouse Manager at the Respondent company, gave evidence under oath.

CN gave evidence that he invited the Complainant back to work. He said that he texted the Complainant three or four times. He said that the Complainant’s girlfriend was working in a filling station, and that therefore the Complainant was unavailable for work because he had to mind her child. He gave evidence that he had personally called out to the Complainant’s house to invite him back to work and the Complainant declined. He explained that initially the managers came back first, and then they tried to get everybody back.

CN said that he collected the key for the warehouse from the Complainant, that he had expected him to return.

He gave evidence that the Complainant had come to the warehouse approximately three (3) weeks later and told them that he had a new job in another company. He said that happened approximately in June 2020.

He gave evidence that Hillbilly’s was still struggling to fill positions [as of the date of the hearing]. He was asked: “Who has been cutting the chicken?” and the answer was “Me. You.” [CN, a warehouse manager; Mr. Grace, the owner], the implication being adduced was that it was ‘all hands on deck.’

On cross examination:

It was put to the witness that he said he had contacted the Complainant but that there was no evidence, e.g. no phone text messages had been entered into evidence. It was put to him that the Complainant disputed that he was invited back to work and that when the witness had called to his house, it was about collecting the keys and there was no conversation about returning to work. The witness denied this. He reiterated that the Complainant had said he was not returning to work, when invited to do so, and again when the witness had called to the Complainant’s house; and that the reason the Complainant had given was that “he was minding the child and getting 350 euros payment per week, so not returning to work.”

The second witness for the Respondent: DK - Warehouse Operative, at the Respondent Company –gave evidence on oath.

DK said that what happened was “exactly what CN said”. He said that CN had rung the Complainant. Then, CN asked DK to ring the Complainant and ask the Complainant in Polish whether he wanted to come back to work. [For clarity: The Complainant and DK are both Polish.] He said that he asked the Complainant “Do you want to come back?” and that the Complainant had said: “No.” DK said that he then rang the next person on the list of employees to be invited back to work. He said that they (he and CN) drove to the Complainant’s house and asked him: “Are you sure you don't want to come back?” He said that the Complainant said: “Yes”, that he was sure. So, they collected the key from him.

On cross examination:

It was put to the witness that the Complainant was disputing his version of events. The witness said that he did not understand initially when the Complainant did not want to come back to work, but that when the Complainant then got a new job, he said “that was 1 + 1.”

The timeline of the return was disputed by the Complainant’s representative on his behalf. It was put to the witness that he had returned to work prior to the Complainant, and that other employees had returned back to work. The witness said that if the Complainant was not going to return, then he had to get somebody else.

It was put to the witness that two employees went to collect the keys from the Complainant, including himself. The witness said the Complainant could still have come back to work.

The witness was asked whether he was present when the Complainant spoke to CN in the warehouse in May 2020, and whether at that point he had requested coming back to work. The Complainant said, “he never asks that,” “he came with some letter, he had a new job, he was working there already.” The witness said that he was aware socially that the Complainant had been talking with friends: “How are things? I have a new job.”

On re-examination:

It was put to the witness that the owner “[had] been cutting chicken himself, that his wife had been down there, that his daughter had been bagging the chicken.” The witness concurred with this. It was put to the witness that the owner had “tried to hire people”, that the company had advertised positions and were “finding it difficult even two years on” [to get staff]. The witness agreed with this.

The third witness for the Respondent: JD - Financial Comptroller at the Respondent company, gave evidence on oath.

JD gave evidence that he came back from holidays at the start of March, just at the start of the pandemic. He said they had closed down everything immediately, on foot of the government policy. He said that after three weeks, they were “back up and running”, that “everyone came back.”

He said that he was told contemporaneously about the trip out to the Complainant's house.

He said that the Complainant came down to the warehouse with a redundancy request, which he dismissed there and then. He said that happened within a couple of months of the initial lockdown.

He said that the Complainant had given evidence that he subsequently came down and spoke to JD. JD said that he had no recollection of the Complainant coming to speak to him.

He said in relation to the redundancy e-mail, that he emailed back informing the Complainant that he had no redundancy entitlement. A copy of the e-mail was submitted, dated March 3rd, 2021.

He was asked about pressure. He said: “the pressure is unreal”, “the amount of chicken we have to cut, thanks be to God.” He said that if they had not managed to get the business back up and running, that the business would have gone under. He said he was very proud of the fact that 90% of their workforce came back to work, at a very risky time. He said the return was gradual in the beginning because everything was tentative. He said they opened shop by shop, and that they still have two premises that have remained unopened. He said they were advertising positions and training staff and that they were working on the weekends (Saturday and Sunday) cutting chicken.

On cross examination:

He was asked who has responsibility in relation to providing a contract of employment, terms and conditions, and in relation to redundancy. He said that the directors made the decision that they had to close in March 2020, that was then communicated to him, and he then told the workers. He said there was no meeting, “everybody was told”, “everybody was there” – “look, we’re gone, for the moment.”

He was asked in relation to May 2020 what was his understanding of what had happened? Was it a layoff (temporary basis) and was he laid off as well? He was asked whether he received an RP9 form? The witness said: “At the time, it was a crisis. The government was telling everybody to close down. RP9s? – forget it.” He said: “The government was giving 350 euro per week to keep us going. Only for that, we couldn't have kept people on the payroll.” He said that he had been involved in liquidations over the years, and that he had “filled out every form”, but in this instance “everyone was laying people off, and nobody was giving out forms.”

He was asked about dismissal and the P45. He said: “We understood at the time, that was for the employees.” The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, queried what was being referred to by the Complainant’s representative when she referred to a P45. The document was produced, and it was a notification to Revenue, not a P45.

On re-examination:

It was put to the witness that the context in which all of this occurred was that: “Dominos were falling around the country.” It was stated that there were one hundred and fifty (150) people on the payroll of the owner at the time, seven (7) in the legal entity that is the Respondent company. It was put to the witness, which he accepted, that he had come back to the business at personal risk to himself (from a health perspective), that he was carrying enormous responsibility. It was put to him that health and safety was the business's number one priority, and that it had instituted a policy in respect of masks prior to them being mandated by government policy. The witness concurred.

The fourth witness for the Respondent

Mr. Michael Grace – the owner of the Respondent company, gave evidence under oath.

Mr. Grace gave evidence that he was running a lot of individual companies, that he was trying to get staff back to work, that some people were particularly nervous at the time. He said: “We weren't given guidance initially.” He said that Hillbilly’s was “uniquely different” because they were doing both takeaway and supplying restaurants. He said that he took his lead from his competitors like McDonald's and SuperMac’s, at the time, and that of course he considered the concerns and the dangers involved, that there were certain risks, and that there were financial concerns.

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, directed him to March 16th, 2020. The witness said that “it still was not clear about us”, that “staff members were just not turning up for work”, that his business was “sort of caught in between.” He said that he took his lead from McDonald's and SuperMac’s, and that once he saw that they were back, “once the call was made”, he had “called a lot of managers.”

He said that initially, he “sat and waited” and “listened to the news.”  He said that about three weeks later, he heard the takeaway business was reopening. He said that initially they “opened a small bit- a take away offering.” He said he “didn't know how busy [they] were going to be.” He said “still to this day, I wouldn't have been sure, whether it was laying off or were they leaving you. To me, it didn't make a big difference - it's a personal choice too.” He said the “people are not forced to stay and work with you.” He said that some staff did not feel comfortable. He said, however, that the company had “good air circulation”, and that he enforced the guidelines.

He said that if the Complainant had not signed a contract, that he must apologise in relation to that, that that was his responsibility and that the Complainant should have received a contract.

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, asked him in relation to the return of staff to work, whether he was directly involved in this, and whether he wanted to address it.

The witness gave evidence that when the initial return happened, “he was conscious that he didn't want to be moving around between the different shops” [as a safety precaution in the context of Covid-19]. He said that: “In the beginning, [he] was mainly working in the McCurtain Street shop” and that he “didn't want to be dropping in on the different locations”, that he spoke to CN, who said there was a lot of pressure, that they spoke about the Complainant. The witness said that he “gave the order that everyone was to be invited back.” He said that “gearing up of the warehouse would have been one of the main things that the two warehouse managers [including CN] were doing at the time.”

On cross examination:

It was put to him that there was a lack of clarity around the situation in March 2020. The witness said that what happened in March 2020 was an “Act of God.” He said that “employees had the freedom of choice whether or not they wanted to return.” He said he “wanted the person to want to work for the company not to have to work for the company.”

He was asked if he had spoken to CN. He confirmed that he had. He said that his managers were “very experienced at their jobs”, “that they got the wheel turning”, “that they got the business opened”. He said he was “very indebted to them.” He said it was “a balancing act” and that there were “safety concerns” and that he “understood the situation.”

He said that CN was a manager, that he directly followed instructions but that he was also trying to do the right thing. The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, inquired as to the reporting structure within the business. The witness said that his business was structured “slightly differently”, that “instruction comes up the line and support comes down the line,” “that the customer is the boss of [his] business” and that his “managers are very responsible people.”

He said he took his guidance from other businesses. It was put to him that it was his decision to reopen the business in three weeks’ time. He said there was a government instruction, that they “took away his authority” that it was “a very unusual situation that [he] was in.” He said: “The government saidit was reopen,so I had to reopen.”

He was asked about his interactions with CN. He was asked why did CN make a decision to invite people back? The witness said that CN discussed it with him [Mr. Grace, the owner] and that people were asked “Would they like to come back to work?”

The Respondent’s final remarks:

Mr. Grace said that what he really wanted to say was that he was “incredibly proud of his employees.” He said he has an “honest, hardworking, loyal staff”; and that “if they hadn't kept the doors open, the company wouldn't be in business.”

By way of background, there are two pathways to redundancy – one is dismissal (instituted by an employer); the other is the ‘triggering’ of a redundancy by an employee put on temporary lay-off or short-time for a period of time longer than that prescribed in the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. In the second instance, an employer is entitled to issue a counter-notice to the employee if it can guarantee work to the employee (again within parameters prescribed in the Act) – the effect of the counter-notice is that the employee is not entitled to a redundancy payment in that scenario, as the employee’s job is not being made redundant. I also note that the language of “may” is used in the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in respect of the form which notice of lay-off by an employer (RP9), notice of seeking to trigger a redundancy by an employee (RP50) and counternotice of work being available, by an employer, may take.

From mid-March 2020 until the end of May 2020 (the relevant time-frame in this case), it was not open to any employee to seek to trigger a redundancy, and consequent redundancy payment, on foot of being on lay-off, due to the suspension of the relevant legislative provision in the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as part of a suite of emergency measures instituted at that time. It was in this context, and to this backdrop, that the Complainant was in receipt of PUP (Pandemic Unemployment Payment), a pandemic-related government support, provided to support workers.

In line with the suspension of the relevant legislative section, the Complainant has not sought to advance the argument that since he had been on lay-off for a period longer than four weeks, he was entitled to trigger a redundancy and that he sought to do so. Instead, he has variously advanced the arguments that having been initially laid off, he was not invited back to work which constituted a dismissal by way of redundancy; and, (through his representative) the argument that he was actually dismissed on March 16th, 2020.

It therefore falls to me to consider whether or not the Complainant was dismissed, and if so, when.

The fact that the Complainant is seeking to assert that he was dismissed by way of redundancy means that from a legal perspective, the Complainant is seeking to rely on s. 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, i.e. that a dismissal took place which is “wholly or mainly” attributable to a redundancy situation, as set out thereunder, and s. 9(1)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in relation to the definition of dismissal, which sets out, as follows at s.9(1): “For the purposes of this Part an employee shall, subject to this Part, be taken to be dismissed by his employer if but only if: (a) the contract under which he is employed by the employer is terminated by the employer, whether by or without notice.” Furthermore, to rely on the general right to a redundancy payment per s. 7(1)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, the Complainant must satisfy the requisite period of continuous service.

It is common case, and I find, as a matter of fact, that the employee had more than 104 weeks service at the date of his lay-off. I am required to determine whether based on the facts of this case the Complainant was dismissed pursuant to Section 9(1)(a) which states that “…. the contract under which he is employed by the employer is terminated by the employer, whether by or without notice.”

I find that the Complainant was temporarily laid off, on foot of government-mandated restrictions in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, on March 16th, 2020. In this regard, I note, as set out in Ryan Redmond on Dismissal Law, 3rd Ed, 2017, at para 22.19 relying on Farrell -v- Farcourt Foods Ltd UD/610/1989: “An employee on lay-off has not had his contract of employment terminated and in such circumstances the issuing of a P45 does not necessarily constitute a termination.” I find that the Complainant was not dismissed on March 16th, 2020, or on any subsequent date by his employer. I find that his job was not made redundant on March 16th, 2020, or indeed, on any subsequent date.

I accept the evidence of the Respondent, that as soon as the Respondent had clarity that it was allowed to re-open at all, in line with the government-issued advice and guidelines, it did so. I accept that this occurred approximately three weeks into the lockdown, and into the Complainant’s period of lay-off. I find that shortly thereafter there was full-time work available for and offered to the Complainant.

I accept the evidence of the Respondent that the Respondent initially brought back a skeleton staff – the managers came back first. I accept that subsequent to that, the Respondent invited every staff member back to work, including the Complainant.

I find that the Complainant declined to return to his job despite being invited to do so on at least three occasions (by CN, by DK, and by both of them again when they travelled to his home) as his job was available to him, which from a legal perspective means the Complainant resigned his employment. In terms of the timeline of events, I find that his refusals to return occurred prior to the Complainant taking up employment with a new employer. In other words, I find that he chose to take up employment with a new employer, not on foot of a lack of clarity as to whether or not he had work with the Respondent company, but by his own hand and for his own reasons.  

The Complainant’s own evidence of what occurred is that he went into his employer to give them two weeks’ notice as he was taking up another position elsewhere. He took up that position on June 2nd, 2020. This would clearly indicate that the Complainant perceived there to be an ongoing employment relationship with the Respondent employer where he had worked for the previous four years (and that he did not perceive himself to have been dismissed on March 16th, 2020), which corresponds with governmental public policy, at the time, to preserve the employment relationship (in relation to the suspension of s. 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and the provision of PUP, TWSS and EWSS), and which also corresponds with the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses, as to the sequence of events which unfolded. It is at odds, however, with his representative’s submission that he was dismissed on March 16th, 2020.

In March 2021, the Complainant sought to trigger a redundancy payment by the issuing of an RP50 form from a job he had left approximately ten (10) months earlier, by his own decision, and while the emergency measures suspending that provision of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 were still in force. I note that the Complainant emailed the Respondent, seeking a redundancy payment in February 2021, and followed up in March 2021. He was correctly informed by the Respondent employer, in writing, on March 3rd, 2021, that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment, at that time.

I accept the Respondent’s witnesses’ version of events, as being correct. I find the Respondent’s case to be cogent and credible. I accept the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses, that every employee including the Complainant was invited back to work. I reject the Complainant’s evidence that every employee except him was invited back to work. I find that the facts adduced on evidence do not support this proposition. On that basis, I find that the Complainant has not established any entitlement to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) as he resigned his employment, rather than return to work.

In the absence of any written or oral communication from the Respondent to convey its intention to terminate the Complainant’s employment contract, I am satisfied that it was not reasonable for the Complainant to infer from the circumstances, that he had been dismissed.

I find that the Complainant has not had his contract of employment terminated as provided for under Section 9(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967. Accordingly, the Complainant remained employed by the Respondent and on lay-off, until he resigned his employment by declining to return to full-time work. I am satisfied, given that the Complainant has not been the subject of a dismissal by the Respondent that Section 7(2)(c) is not applicable to this case. Therefore, I determine that the Complainant is not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.

Covid-19 Related Lay-Off Scheme

The ability of an employee to seek to trigger a redundancy on foot of a lay-off, under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, was suspended for a period of more than two years. This was done by way of The Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (COVID-19) Act 2020, and that suspension was subsequently lifted in the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Act 2022.

Having examined the terms of the scheme, I note that the Covid-19 Related Lay-Off Scheme, the terms of which are set out in the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Act 2022, applies only to employees on periods of lay-off who were subsequently made redundant, and is therefore not applicable to the Complainant.

Revenue eBrief No. 092/22 states, in respect of it: “A new State funded payment known as the “Covid-19 related lay-off payment” (CRLP) will be made from the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) in respect of periods of lay-off due to Covid-19, where the employee is subsequently made redundant.” (emphasis added)

The government website (gov.ie) setting out the criteria (as an explainer for members of the public) which have to be met in order to be eligible for the payment states, as follows:

“The COVID-19 Related Lay-Off Payment Scheme is a once off, lump sum payment for employees who:

·    have been made redundant (emphasis added) since 13 March 2020, or are made redundant before 31 January 2025

and

·    have lost the opportunity to build reckonable service due to temporary lay-offs caused by the COVID-19 restrictions from 13 March 2020 to 31 January 2022

How to Qualify:

To qualify for this scheme, you must be entitled to a redundancy payment under existing rules, meaning:

·    you have 104 weeks' continuous employment

·    your employment is fully insurable under the Social Welfare Act

·    your job no longer exists (emphasis added)

·    you are over the age of 16

You must also:

·    be entitled to a redundancy payment between 13 March 2020 and 31 January 2025 (emphasis added)

and

·    have been temporarily laid off due to the COVID-19 restrictions during some or all of the period between 13 March 2020 and 31 January 2022

Information about the tax treatment of payments under the Scheme can be found on the Revenue website.”

Simply put, I find that the Complainant does not meet the criteria of having “been made redundant,” nor the requirement that “your job no longer exists”, nor was he “entitled to a redundancy payment between 13 March 2020 and 31 January 2025.”

On the basis of my findings, as set out, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish an entitlement to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended), as he resigned his employment.

Redundancy; Lay-off; Covid-19; PUP; Resignation;