Employee was awarded a statutory redundancy payment after the employer failed to follow proper procedures when reducing his hours and providing clear employment records.

The Complainant had been employed as a General Operative with the Respondent from August 2013 until December 2024, earning €750 gross weekly for a 35-hour week. He stated that after 11 years of service, he was dismissed without notice in December 2024, receiving only a handwritten letter for the Department of Social Protection. He claimed he had never received payslips during his employment or a P60 for nine years. He had written to the Respondent seeking monies owed but received no reply. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was not dismissed in December 2024. Business difficulties in August 2024 led to reduced work, but the Complainant was kept on full pay until the Christmas break. From January 2025, the Respondent planned to reduce work to three days weekly but could not agree to the Complainant’s request for two days. The last working day cited was simply before holidays, and the Respondent expected his return. A letter given to the Complainant was for social welfare purposes, not redundancy. The Respondent maintained the role remained open and sought dismissal of the claim.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment effective from January 2025. This was based on his employment from August 2013, a gross average weekly wage of €750, and the finding that his hours had been permanently reduced below 50% without counter-notice from the Respondent. Note, the award being subject to proof of insurable employment during the relevant period.

• From this decision, the key lesson for employers is the importance of clear, documented communication regarding any reduction in hours, layoff, or termination. In this case, letters to the Department of Social Protection were interpreted as evidence of dismissal, despite the Respondent’s later denial. Employers should ensure that all correspondence is accurately worded to avoid unintended implications, and that any statements provided to third parties cannot be misconstrued as confirming redundancy unless that is the genuine intention. 
  
• It is also essential to follow the statutory procedures under the Redundancy Payments Acts when hours are reduced below 50% for a prolonged period. Where an employee serves notice of intention to claim redundancy, employers must promptly issue a counter-notice if they wish to contest liability. Failure to do so, as seen here, can result in a finding that redundancy has occurred, even where the employer intended the arrangement to be temporary. 
  
• Another critical point is the need for proper employment records. In this case, the absence of payslips, a written contract, and evidence of PRSI contributions weakened the employer’s position. Maintaining accurate records, contracts, and proof of insurable employment is not only a legal requirement but also protects against disputes. 
  
• Finally, employers should note that the award here was made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment during the relevant period. This means that, where PRSI contributions have not been properly recorded or paid, an award could be delayed or reduced.  
  

The full case can be found here.