Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.
Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.
Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.
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.
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
