Company Closure and Redundancy Question

Quoideneuf

In the event of notice being given for a company closure (and therefore notice of termination of employment), then that closure being "cancelled" for the foreseeable future, but the company closes 6 months later anyway, can full redundancy payment be refused on the basis of an employee reengaging in work due to the initial non-closure of the company? Nothing in writing, no contract. Working at company for over 3 years. Two weeks being offered.

OMM 0000

Quoideneuf wrote: »

an employee reengaging in work due to the initial non-closure of the company

Can you clarify what that means?

Jim2007

Quoideneuf wrote: »

In the event of notice being given for a company closure (and therefore notice of termination of employment), then that closure being "cancelled" for the foreseeable future, but the company closes 6 months later anyway, can full redundancy payment be refused on the basis of an employee reengaging in work due to the initial non-closure of the company? Nothing in writing, no contract. Working at company for over 3 years. Two weeks being offered.

You mean you want the deal you were offered on the previous occasion?

Quoideneuf

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Can you clarify what that means?

I should have said effectively reengages in work, as there was no break in the employment. In other words, the decision to close was reversed and then the company closed 6 months later.

Quoideneuf

Jim2007 wrote: »

You mean you want the deal you were offered on the previous occasion?

No- just statutory redundancy. Apologies, reading that back, it looks as though I was refusing the redundancy payment. I mean can the employer refuse to pay statutory redundancy and offer a smaller amount.

bucketybuck

So they gave notice of closure, but I assume did not follow through with that and never actually terminated any employment? If they had then they would have had to pay redundancy at that point, no?

Are they saying that they did terminate employment then? Was there any gap in the employment? Did you stop working for a day/week at any point?

Quoideneuf

bucketybuck wrote: »

So they gave notice of closure, but I assume did not follow through with that and never actually terminated any employment? If they had then they would have had to pay redundancy at that point, no?

Are they saying that they did terminate employment then? Was there any gap in the employment? Did you stop working for a day/week at any point?

There was no gap at all, just a reversal of the decision to close. Honestly, I still have to clarify things, as the announcement was made and two weeks was mentioned briefly, so I want to have my facts straight before I ask for clarification.

Op there was no break in service after the initial announcement to close, you can leave that out when considering what redundancy you are entitled to.


What you need to know is here:

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/redundancy_payments.html

Jim2007

Quoideneuf wrote: »

No- just statutory redundancy. Apologies, reading that back, it looks as though I was refusing the redundancy payment. I mean can the employer refuse to pay statutory redundancy and offer a smaller amount.

Can you clarify what you mean by a company closure? If the company is closing down then it is a liquidation not a redundancy. In such a situation the appointed liquidator will pay out what is available and the state will come of for the rest to bring it up to the statuary amount.

_Brian

Your only entitled To statutory redundancy payment. Anything above that is at the good will of the company.

If they were willing to pay above that in the past it means nothing.

I worked in a company who were offering 20% more for voluntary redundancies and then when they didn’t get enough the compulsory redundancies were just statutory rate.