Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007422
Complainant awarded Redundancy Payment despite dispute over break in service
The Complainant discussed his option of travelling to America with his Employer which was agreed to by his Employer stating that he would be very welcome back. The Complainant submitted that he did not submit a written resignation. He travelled to America in March 2015 and returned at the end of July 2015. He returned to work with the same Employer on the 1st August 2015. He was not provided with a new contract of employment at this time.
The Complainant submitted that his Employer did not issue him a P45 during the course of 2015 and the first P45 he received was in 2016 when the Employer’s location closed.
The Employer submitted that no written documentation existed on file other than a 2015 P45 which had been issued in March 2015. It was submitted that this had been handed to the Complainant by the owner’s daughter. The Employer could not comment on the reason given by the Complainant for leaving the Respondent’s employment at this time and confirmed it did not think that the Complainant had been provided with a new contract of employment in August 2015.
At the end of his employment, the Complainant submitted that the manager advised him that she would check with the owner whether he was entitled to a redundancy payment, subsequently advising him that given his more than two years of service, he met the requirement for a payment. The Complainant further stated that his Manager subsequently spoke to the Complainant to advise that given his break in service in 2015, no such entitlement existed.
At the hearing, the Complainant stated that this was the first time he had heard of a P45 being issued in 2015.
On the balance of probabilities, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant stopped working for the Respondent in 2015 with the authorisation of the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer was not persuaded that a P45 was issued to the Complainant in 2015 because of the absence of other corroborative documentation regarding the end of his employment and the commencement of a separate period of employment in August 2015.
Applying Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act of 1967 which addresses continuous service and reckonable service and referring to the case of Harte v Telecord Holdings Co. Ltd, the Adjudication Officer determined that the Complainant had stopped working with the Respondent with their consent and discussed a return to work for the Complainant following his trip to the United States. Given this, the Adjudicator determined that the Complainant had the requisite service to be entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act.
This is an interesting case for all Employers. Schedule 3 of the Act addresses continuous service and reckonable service. It provides that continuity of service shall not be broken for various causes, including “any cause (other than the voluntary leaving of the employment concerned by the employee) not mentioned in the clauses (i) to (iv) but authorised by the employer.”
As a general rule, employment will be regarded as continuous unless it has been terminated by dismissal or the Employee leaves his or her employment voluntarily. The Workplace Relations Commission normally presumes that a person’s employment was continuous unless the contrary is proven, which the Employer was unsuccessful in demonstrating in this instance.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005137
Complainant awarded Redundancy Payment after a period of layoff
The Complainant worked for the Respondent for approximately 15 years. He worked full-time until December 2012 when he was placed on a three day week which he disputed. He provided full time cover for different weeks in 2013 and 2014. From May 2015 the Complainant was out on sick leave until September 2015. He sent in a final medical cert and letter dated the 14th of September 2015 indicating a return to work date of the 21st September 2015. The
Respondent then placed the Complainant on a temporary layoff.
Further to the temporary layoff letter from September, the layoff continued on a week by week basis. On the 21st October 2015, the Respondent confirmed that full time work was not available for a minimum of 16 weeks. On the 22nd October 2015 the Complainant sent a letter and an RP9 to the Respondent. Further correspondence from the Complainant was sent in November 2015 with a RP77 and an RP50. On the 25th January 2016 a further letter was issued from the Complainant enquiring about his redundancy claim. On the 1st June 2016, a further letter was sent to the Respondent. This was replied to on the 15th June with a completed paper form of an RP50. This was forwarded to the Redundancy payments section on the 21st of June 2016. Further correspondence with the Respondent took place in relation to evidence of inability to pay from Redundancy payments section. Such evidence was not produced at this time.
The Complainant contended that he never accepted the reduced working hours and had corresponded with the Respondent in writing to this effect. The Complainant further stated he had numerous conversations where he stated that the Respondent told him that this was only a temporary situation and he would increase his hours back to full-time hours. The Respondent signed the RP50 based on full-time working hours and had corresponded with the Complainant in writing to that effect.
The Respondent’s representative stated that the Employer fully accepted that the Complainant had an entitlement to his redundancy payments, however the organisation was not in a position to pay him the redundancy payments as it was struggling to survive financially. The Respondent submitted financial accounts from their Registered Auditors and Accountant for years ending 31st December 2015 and 31st December 2016. The Respondent submitted these accounts clearly demonstrated that the organisation only generated a net income to cover personal commitments including personal taxation and the organisation did not have the capacity to cover redundancy payments.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Adjudication Officer upheld the claim for redundancy payment by the Complainant. The calculation for the award of redundancy was based on the following information:
Date of commencement: 4th January 2000
Date of termination: 21st September 2015
Gross weekly: €720.60
Complainant awarded Redundancy Payment despite dispute over break in service
The Complainant discussed his option of travelling to America with his Employer which was agreed to by his Employer stating that he would be very welcome back. The Complainant submitted that he did not submit a written resignation. He travelled to America in March 2015 and returned at the end of July 2015. He returned to work with the same Employer on the 1st August 2015. He was not provided with a new contract of employment at this time.
The Complainant submitted that his Employer did not issue him a P45 during the course of 2015 and the first P45 he received was in 2016 when the Employer’s location closed.
The Employer submitted that no written documentation existed on file other than a 2015 P45 which had been issued in March 2015. It was submitted that this had been handed to the Complainant by the owner’s daughter. The Employer could not comment on the reason given by the Complainant for leaving the Respondent’s employment at this time and confirmed it did not think that the Complainant had been provided with a new contract of employment in August 2015.
At the end of his employment, the Complainant submitted that the manager advised him that she would check with the owner whether he was entitled to a redundancy payment, subsequently advising him that given his more than two years of service, he met the requirement for a payment. The Complainant further stated that his Manager subsequently spoke to the Complainant to advise that given his break in service in 2015, no such entitlement existed.
At the hearing, the Complainant stated that this was the first time he had heard of a P45 being issued in 2015.
On the balance of probabilities, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant stopped working for the Respondent in 2015 with the authorisation of the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer was not persuaded that a P45 was issued to the Complainant in 2015 because of the absence of other corroborative documentation regarding the end of his employment and the commencement of a separate period of employment in August 2015.
Applying Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act of 1967 which addresses continuous service and reckonable service and referring to the case of Harte v Telecord Holdings Co. Ltd, the Adjudication Officer determined that the Complainant had stopped working with the Respondent with their consent and discussed a return to work for the Complainant following his trip to the United States. Given this, the Adjudicator determined that the Complainant had the requisite service to be entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act.
This is an interesting case for all Employers. Schedule 3 of the Act addresses continuous service and reckonable service. It provides that continuity of service shall not be broken for various causes, including “any cause (other than the voluntary leaving of the employment concerned by the employee) not mentioned in the clauses (i) to (iv) but authorised by the employer.”
As a general rule, employment will be regarded as continuous unless it has been terminated by dismissal or the Employee leaves his or her employment voluntarily. The Workplace Relations Commission normally presumes that a person’s employment was continuous unless the contrary is proven, which the Employer was unsuccessful in demonstrating in this instance.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005137
Complainant awarded Redundancy Payment after a period of layoff
The Complainant worked for the Respondent for approximately 15 years. He worked full-time until December 2012 when he was placed on a three day week which he disputed. He provided full time cover for different weeks in 2013 and 2014. From May 2015 the Complainant was out on sick leave until September 2015. He sent in a final medical cert and letter dated the 14th of September 2015 indicating a return to work date of the 21st September 2015. The
Respondent then placed the Complainant on a temporary layoff.
Further to the temporary layoff letter from September, the layoff continued on a week by week basis. On the 21st October 2015, the Respondent confirmed that full time work was not available for a minimum of 16 weeks. On the 22nd October 2015 the Complainant sent a letter and an RP9 to the Respondent. Further correspondence from the Complainant was sent in November 2015 with a RP77 and an RP50. On the 25th January 2016 a further letter was issued from the Complainant enquiring about his redundancy claim. On the 1st June 2016, a further letter was sent to the Respondent. This was replied to on the 15th June with a completed paper form of an RP50. This was forwarded to the Redundancy payments section on the 21st of June 2016. Further correspondence with the Respondent took place in relation to evidence of inability to pay from Redundancy payments section. Such evidence was not produced at this time.
The Complainant contended that he never accepted the reduced working hours and had corresponded with the Respondent in writing to this effect. The Complainant further stated he had numerous conversations where he stated that the Respondent told him that this was only a temporary situation and he would increase his hours back to full-time hours. The Respondent signed the RP50 based on full-time working hours and had corresponded with the Complainant in writing to that effect.
The Respondent’s representative stated that the Employer fully accepted that the Complainant had an entitlement to his redundancy payments, however the organisation was not in a position to pay him the redundancy payments as it was struggling to survive financially. The Respondent submitted financial accounts from their Registered Auditors and Accountant for years ending 31st December 2015 and 31st December 2016. The Respondent submitted these accounts clearly demonstrated that the organisation only generated a net income to cover personal commitments including personal taxation and the organisation did not have the capacity to cover redundancy payments.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Adjudication Officer upheld the claim for redundancy payment by the Complainant. The calculation for the award of redundancy was based on the following information:
Date of commencement: 4th January 2000
Date of termination: 21st September 2015
Gross weekly: €720.60
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
