Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Ion Lipsuic v Northway Personnel Ltd [2024]
Ion Lipsuic v Northway Personnel Ltd [2024]
Published on: 29/05/2024
Issues Covered: Redundancy
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Paul D Maier BL
Paul D Maier BL
Background

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

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 29/05/2024
Q&A
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →