Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anthony  Jackson

Alert Plumbing & Heating Alert Mechanical Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00064853-001

18/07/2024

The Complainant commenced employment on 18 January 2018 as an Apprentice Plumber. He was temporarily laid off by the Respondent on 12 January 2024. Despite having served notice of his intention to claim a redundancy lump sum on 1 March 2024, he did not receive the payment to which he stated he was entitled.

The Complainant stated that he was temporarily laid off by the Respondent on 12 January 2024. He stated that he subsequently completed part B of the RP9 form indicating notice of his intention to claim a redundancy lump sum on 1 March 2024.

He stated that as the Respondent did not provide suitable alternative work for him within a four-week period of him having served notice of his intention to claim a redundancy lump sum, he was entitled to a redundancy payment.

In January 2024, the Respondent stated that they experienced a lull in work due to a contract being cancelled and another being deferred to a later date. This meant that they did not have enough work for every employee and a decision had to be made about lay-off. The Managing Director spoke with the Complainant explaining the situation and that it was necessary to place him on temporary lay-off, which was expected to be a matter of weeks, until the new project commenced. The Complainant’s last day of work was 12 January 2024.

On 18 January 2024, the Respondent emailed a copy of a letter outlining the Complainant’s temporary lay-off from employment. This was followed up on 25 January 2024, when the Respondent emailed his job seekers form. On 12th February and 20th February 2024, the Complainant emailed the Respondent to inquire about work. The Respondent had no update from their customer however and no work was available.

On 1 March 2024, the Respondent received the RP9 form from the Complainant. However, due to office cover, it wasn’t until Thursday 7 March 2024 that the Managing Director was made aware that the form had been received. He subsequently called the Complainant and offered him a role as a General Operative (GO) on a lower rate of pay as he had no other available work at the time. He also explained to the Complainant that he expected to pick up more plumbing work in a few weeks and that he could expect to resume his plumbing role then.

The Managing Director explained that Complainant informed him that the option of a GO role was not a runner for him and that he would prefer to come back to his old position. The Respondent stated that the office would contact him as soon as the specific start dates for the new project were known and plumbing work became available.

In the instant case, the parties are agreed that the Complainant was placed on lay-off as defined by the Act. It is further agreed that the Complainant served notice of potential redundancy on 1 March 2024 and that the Respondent replied to the same within the statutory timeframe. The position of the Complainant is that the offer of alternative employment issued by the Respondent related to significantly reduced terms of employment.

In this regard, Section 11 of the Act provides that lay-off occurs whereby,

“…an employee’s employment ceases by reason of his employer’s being unable to provide the work for which the employee was employed to do, and (a) it is reasonable in the circumstances for that employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent, and (b) the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation….”

Thereafter, Section 12(1) provides that,

“An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off…unless (a) he has been laid off…for four or more consecutive weeks…and (b) after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off…mentioned in paragraph (a)…gives to his employer notice…writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time.”

Finally, in relation to counter notice, Section 13(1) provides that,

“…an employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in pursuance of a notice of intention to claim if, on the date of service of that notice, it was reasonably to be expected that the employee (if he continued to be employed by the same employer) would, not later than four weeks after that date, enter upon a period of employment of not less than thirteen weeks during which he would not be laid off or kept on short-time for any week.”

In this case, the Respondent stated that the Complainant was offered the role of General Operative within four weeks of him having given notice of his intention to claim a redundancy lump sum. Given that the terms and conditions of this position were inferior to what he had been receiving prior to his lay-off in respect of his plumbing role, I find that this offer did not constitute a suitable alternative role and therefore allow the Complainant’s appeal.

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: 18 January 2018

·       Date of termination: 1 March 2024

·       Gross weekly wage: € 658.79

·       Period of Temporary Lay -off: 12 January 2024 to 1 March 2024

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.