# Redundancy and Minimum Notice Periods



## PetrolHead (9 Feb 2009)

I was 'let go' by my employers last week. Notified on Thursday (05/02), finished on Friday (06/02). The premises I managed was closed down on Friday evening - my position obviously redundant.

I had worked for the company for 18 months and therefore do not expect to receive any Redundancy Payment. They were also very careful not to use the term redundancy, instead using the term 'let go'.

My P45 states the cessation of employment was 06/02/09. I was paid up to this date and was given a cheque equivalent to outstanding holidays and one weeks wages in lieu of notice. All totalled correctly on my P45.

My question is - Am I entittled to another weeks pay in lieu of notice?

The situation clearly fulfils the definition of redundancy and redundancy requires two weeks notice, however, they argued that redundancy does not exist until 104 weeks of service are completed whatever the situation and that I was simply 'dismissed'.

Is this the case or can I rightfully claim another weeks pay? 

Is there a gap in the law whereby you are not actually 'made redundant' until you have worked somewhere for 2 years?


----------



## sandrat (9 Feb 2009)

according to [broken link removed]  from redundancy.ie

*Length of employment *-----------*Minimum Period of Notice *
Less than 13 weeks ...................Nil 
13 weeks - 2 years ....................1 Week
2 years - 5 years .......................2 Weeks
5 years - 10 years .................... 4 Weeks
10 years - 15 years ................... 6 Weeks
More than 15 years ....................8 Weeks


----------



## WaterSprite (9 Feb 2009)

This is a v interesting situation.  The employer should  have actually stated clearly that you were being dismissed due to redundancy, as redundancy is a "fair" ground for dismissal.  I suspect that they didn't want to use the term "redundancy" so as to avoid paying statutory redundancy; which was unnecessary because you are not entitled to statutory redundancy in any case because you have less than 2 years' service.  The two weeks' notice for redundancy only applies where you have this 2 years' service.

*IF* they had dismissed you due to redundancy (and stated as such) and *IF* your contract has no notice period, then giving you one week's pay in lieu of notice and letting you go would have been perfectly OK.  However, because they have, in effect, dismissed you for no reason (you are inferring that it's due to redundancy), then, on the face of it, there's a claim for unfair dismissal.  Obviously, if you bring this up, the company will turn around and immediately say that you are being dismissed due to redundancy so you'd be basing a claim on the fact that they flip-flopped on their reason for dismissing you.  It does sound like they are actually dismissing you due to redundancy so, on the substance (but not form) of it, they would be in the clear.  I personally wouldn't fancy taking a full unfair dismissals case on this basis but you may be able to use this info to negotiate an additional week's pay.  

I'd recommend that you head to an employment solicitor to clarify but can understand that, for the sake of a week's pay, you may not want to. The remedy for an unfair dismissal is up to 2 years' remuneration, but I really can't see you getting anything like that even if you are successful. If you try to deal with it yourself, you may be successful in getting your extra week, but are taking that risk that they just stonewall you and change their tune to finally say that you were dismissed due to redundancy and, thus, have no unfair dismissals claim.  If I was the employer, I'd pay you the extra week toot sweet and clobber whoever reckoned that being circumspect on the reason for dismissal was a good idea...


----------

