R and R Mechanical Ltd T/A RR Projects v Peter Kiely

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 10 JIEC 2503
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.RPD1813 ADJ-00010379 CA-00013742-001
• Date: 25 October 2018

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

RPA/18/22

DETERMINATION NO.RPD1813

ADJ-00010379 CA-00013742-001

PARTIES:

R and R Mechanical Ltd T/A RR Projects

and

Peter Kiely

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Foley

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00010379.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 October 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

3 This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by R and R Mechanical Limited t/a RR Projects (the Appellant) of a decision by an Adjudication officer in a complaint made by Peter Kiely (the Respondent) under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2014.

4 The Adjudication Officer found that the Respondent had been made redundant and found that the Respondent was entitled to receive a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act.

The Case

5 There is no dispute that the Respondent's employment terminated on 14th November 2016.

6 It is common case that the Respondent was employed by the Appellant from June 2009 to the termination of his employment. It was also common case that the Appellant held a contract with a client company in Galway and that contract was lost in late 2016.

7 The Respondent maintained before the Court that he had worked at a single location in Galway during the entire period of his employment. He stated that following the loss of contract by the employer in late 2016 and a subsequent period of lay off he was asked to work in Dublin for a six-week period. He had responded to that request to advise that he would be unable to take up that work. He stated that he had never sought his P45 but that the Company had issued it to him in November 2016, thereby terminating his employment.

8 The Appellant accepted before the Court that the offer of six weeks employment in Dublin was not a reasonable offer of alternative employment to the Respondent within the meaning of the Act. The Appellant submitted to the Court that the Respondent had not been furnished with a contract of employment at any time during his employment. The Appellant submitted that the nature of the business was such as to be transient. The Appellant acknowledged to the Court that it could not say how, in the absence of a contract of...