Introduction – Lay-off or Suspension?
An interesting case recently arose wherein an employee claimed he was on lay-off, while the employer claimed he was suspended. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) examined the criteria it would analyze, when determining which category the employee fell into (ADJ-00026100).
Section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2015 provides:
“An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or laid off or kept on short time for a minimum period shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to a payment of monies which shall be known (and/or in this Act referred to) as a redundancy payment. . .”
Section 7(2) of the Acts as amended further provides that:
For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—
(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or
(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or
(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or
(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or
(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.
What is Lay-off and Short-time?
11 — (1) Where 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,
that cessation of employment shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as lay-off.
(2) Where —
(a) for any week an employee’s remuneration is less than one-half of his normal weekly remuneration or his hours of work are reduced to less than one-half of his normal weekly hours,
(b) the reduction in remuneration or hours of work is caused by a diminution either in the work provided for the employee by his employer or in other work of a kind which under his contract the employee is employed to do.
(c) it is reasonable in the circumstances for the employer to believe that the diminution in work will not be permanent and he gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the reduction in remuneration or hours of work,
the employee shall, for the purposes of this Part, be taken to be kept on short-time for that week.
The Right to Redundancy Payment by reason of Lay-off or Short-time
12. — (1) An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off or kept on short-time unless —
(a) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for four or more consecutive weeks or, within a period of thirteen weeks, for a series of six or more weeks of which not more than three were consecutive, and
(b) after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short-time mentioned in paragraph ( a ) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short-time, he gives to his employer notice (in this Part referred to as a notice of intention to claim) in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time.
(2) Where, after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short-time mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short time, an employee to whom that subsection applies, in lieu of giving to his employer a notice of intention to claim, terminates his contract of employment either by giving him the notice thereby required or, if none is so required, by giving him not less than one week ’ s notice in writing of intention to terminate the contract, the notice so given shall, for the purposes of this Part and of Schedule 2, be deemed to be a notice of intention to claim given in writing to the employer by the employee on the date on which the notice is actually given.
It was held by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in the case of St. Ledger v Frontline Distribution Ireland Ltd [1995] E.L.R. 160 when considering the statutory definition of “redundancy” that:
“Impersonality runs throughout the five definitions in the Act. Redundancy impacts on the job and only as a consequence of the redundancy does the person involved lose his job. It is worthy of note that the E.C. Directive on Collective Redundancies uses a shorter and simpler definition: ‘one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’. Change also runs through all five definitions. This means change in the workplace. The most dramatic change of all is a complete close down. Change may also mean a reduction in needs for employees, or a reduction in numbers”.
Conclusion
The WRC, in the present case, noting that the employee was under investigation for a disciplinary matter, decided the employee was under suspension, rather than lay-off, and therefore not entitled to a redundancy payment.
