ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047056
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Mikhailevich | Dh Contractors Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00058020-001 | 01/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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.
The Complainant as well as a Director of the Respondent, Mr Derek Hanlon, attended the hearing. As there was no conflict in evidence, it was not necessary to administer the oath/affirmation.
Background:
The Complainant commenced his employment as an apprentice carpenter with the Respondent on 16 September 2019. He was put on temporary lay-off due to a downturn in work on 20 March 2023. He requested his statutory redundancy on 27 June 2023 but did not receive the payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced his employment as an apprentice carpenter with the Respondent on 16 September 2019. He was put on temporary lay-off due to a downturn in work on 20 March 2023. As there was no communication thereafter from the Respondent, he requested a statutory redundancy payment on 27 June 2023 but did not receive the payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that he had obtained work for the Complainant with a different company after he had been put on temporary lay-off but that the Complainant refused the job offer. As such, he was not entitled to a redundancy payment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law: Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014 provides as follows: (1) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if — (a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment, (b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract, (c) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of the termination of his contract, and (d) he has unreasonably refused the offer. (2) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if – (a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee's contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment, (b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract, (c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee, (d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract, and (e) he has unreasonably refused the offer. FINDINGS It was not disputed by the Respondent’s director that his company had no further work for the Complainant in the period after he was temporarily laid off on 20 March 2023 and when he requested his redundancy payment on 27 June 2023. Mr Hanlon stated however that he had sourced alternative work for the Complainant with a sub-contractor and that he intended to bring the Complainant back to his employment when work picked up. As the Complainant refused this offer of alternative employment however, Mr Hanlon stated his view that he was not entitled to a redundancy payment. As the offer of alternative employment was with a different company and not with the Respondent, I find that the Complainant was entitled to refuse the offer. Moreover, as there was no offer of suitable employment made directly by the Respondent either during the period of temporary lay-off or within 7 days of the Complainant having made a request for his statutory redundancy entitlements on 27 June 2023, I allow the Complainant’s appeal. |
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.
I allow the Complainant’s appeal for the reasons set out above and find that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 16 September 2019 - Date of termination: 27 June 2023 - Gross weekly wage: €533.53 - Period of temporary lay – off: 20 March 2023 - 27 June 2023. This period is non-reckonable for the purposes of calculating the redundancy payment. This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 02nd of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|