Case Number: ADJ-00000060. Workplace Relations Commission

Docket NumberADJ-00000060
Date03 March 2016
CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
PartiesAn Employee -v- An Employer

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000060

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:


Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967



Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/12/2015

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham


The complaint relates to the complainant's entitlement to redundancy following a period of lay-off in 2015. The complainant served an RP9 form on the 28th August 2015, following which the respondent employer corresponded with him about forthcoming work. The respondent employer outlines that the complainant is not entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts because he was offered subsequent employment.

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant commenced employment on the 22nd October 2012 and held a full-time post as a chef. He was initially directly employed by the public house, but the catering function was later out-sourced to the respondent and his employment was subject to a transfer of undertaking. The transfer took place on the 1st July 2013. He worked between 39 and 55 hours per week and was paid €10 per hour. On the 26th May 2015, the public house was closed and the complainant placed on lay-off.

The complainant outlined that he had never seen the contract of employment provided by the respondent at the hearing. He said that the Director had telephoned him some 14 or 15 weeks into the period of lay-off. He was offered a once-off placement, which he was not interested in. He had spoken to his colleagues, also on lay-off, and was aware that they had been rostered with more hours. The complainant said that he sent the RP9 on the 22nd September 2015. In respect of the hours offered by the respondent on the 1st and 8th October 2915, but there were too few hours rostered and they were spread over too many days. He said that he was not informed of the location of this work.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent is an events company and took over the catering service in a named public house, until it went into receivership in May 2015. The public house closed on the 28th May 2015 and the complainant and the other employees based in the establishment were placed on lay-off. This was communicated to the complainant and the other employees in an email of this date.

The respondent outlined that in the time that followed the lay-off, the Director had made telephone calls to the complainant to offer him work. This included catering work at an international sporting event held on the 25th July 2015. The complainant said that he could not find a babysitter for this day. The Director said that she used the telephone call to check in with the complainant and asked that he inform her of his availability as she could assign him work. She said that work was now coming in. She said that there had been work, for example at the airport and associated events.

The Director said that all the employees on lay-off, including the complainant had contracted hours of 39 hours per week. During the period of lay-off, the Director said that she had sought to generate work to offer to these employees. Initially, the Director was only able to offer employees short-time hours, but hoped that she would be able to offer the full complement of hours within a few weeks.

In respect of the complainant, the Director said that she emailed him on the 10th September 2015 to say that progress was being made in securing new work. She wrote to the complainant on the 1st October 2015 to say that the respondent was returning the RP9 form because his post was not redundant. The letter provides the complainant with 22 hours between the 7th and 11th October 2015. No location of work is provided in the letter. The Director said this work was at a landside catering facility in the vicinity of the airport. The complainant did not attend work. In a letter of the 8th October 2015, the complainant was offered 24 hours over five days between the 12th and 18th October 2015. The letter also says that the complainant's employment will be deemed terminated if he did not attend these rostered hours. In subsequent correspondence, it is submitted that his employment ended on the 18th October 2015.

Concluding, the respondent said that during the period of lay-off, they sought to build up hours rostered to employees as the business developed. They had been disappointed that the complainant had not been in contact to outline his availability or to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT