Summary Sentence:

The Complainant succeeded in proving the offers made to him by the Respondent of alternative employment following his role being made redundant were not suitable and therefore the Complainant was entitled to a redundancy payment.

Background:

The Complainantis a worker in the construction trade and was employed by the Respondent, an employment agency which provides construction personnel. The Respondent assigned the Complainant to a client near the Complainant’s home and the Complainant worked there for approximately three years, but after the project ended the Complainant was placed on temporary lay-off. After four consecutive weeks of temporary lay-off the Complainant issued the Respondent an RP9 form claiming for his redundancy lump sum. The Respondent did not accept this was a redundancy and advised the Complainant that it expects to be able to offer the Complainant work within four weeks. The Respondent offered the Complainant three job offers in locations which the Complainant said were “not convenient” given the Complainant’s lack of a driver’s license and his obligation to therefore take public transportation. Other roles, which were more geographically suitable to the Complainant were not at the same level as the role the Complainant had held. In one instance the Complainant was offered a role as a Traffic Marshal in a location close to the Complainant’s prior location of work. The Complainant had the relevant training for the role, but this role was not of the same scope as the Complainant’s prior position.

Outcome:

The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant was entitled to refuse the offers of employment made to him, as they were either impossible for him to attend or, in respect of the offer of the role of Traffic Marshal, the role was “materially different” to the role the Complainant had previously held.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

Employers who wish to redeploy workers who would otherwise be entitled to redundancy must do so into jobs which the employee can reasonably travel and which are not “materially different” to the job they previously held.

The full case is here:

https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/april/adj-00047137.html