Temp layoff situation

saskiaharpe

Company sent us home again with the level 5 restrictions and have been told that there will be no work until beginning of January '21. Contract is "zero hours" type. We usually don't get any work in December each year which is normal due to nature of this business (which is fine so we can take all of our holidays in one go).
Couple of days later we get an email saying that they found "some" work for us and to confirm our availability. The work they found is not what we were hired for(example: got hired as a chef but a client of our company has some spaces free as cleaners and we're supposed to take that position now). Is this right? Are we obligated to take such random job positions?

Email from the company also stated that we need to be careful because the company is offering us jobs and if we apply for PUP we will commit fraud and we will be reported to the Revenue Commissioners straight away as we are committing an offence.

What are your thoughts on this?
Before anyone says that we're just trying to avoid working and just sitting on gov benefits, we have been working everyday since the pandemic started. It's just the way this email was addressed to us that makes my heart rate go up.

OMM 0000

I think it sounds like the company has no work for you, and has made an effort to try to find something alternative if you want it.

I don't know if people on zero hour contracts qualify for redundancy, but if they do, check out this:

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

"If your employer makes you a reasonable offer of alternative work, and you refuse it, you may lose your entitlement to a redundancy payment. Generally, alternatives which involve a loss of status or worsening of the terms and conditions of your employment would not be considered reasonable."

So I think with your example (chef -> cleaner) you'd be safe.

tringle

Re the PUP they are partially right. If you lose your job specifically due to Covid you are entitled to the payment. Its now on a sliding scale of €350 down to €203 depending on what you earn. What was happening was people working just part time jobs were refusing to go back to them because they were better off on PUP. If this happens the employer can report them and as they are not "available" for work they are not entitled to the payment.
You are in a grey area, your job is gone so you are entitled to PUP. They have offered you work, I would say it would come down to how different the roles are and what is in your contract. If your contract says your role is chef and that is not available now due to Covid then you should get PUP. Chef to cleaner (yes I know you only give these as examples) I would see as not being a like for like swap but chef to school canteen cook would. PUP payments are procesed online, once you have documentation showing your employment has ceased due to Covid it should be awarded. If the employer then reports you as not making yourself available for work the case would be sent to a Social Welfare Inspector to determine (not Revenue). It would be then up to you to prove your case to them. It could go either way.

My own personal opinion right now is a job is a job and Im happy to have one. Many people have been redeployed to other roles during this crisis and we do need to be adaptable. But its down to you to decide if they are genuinely trying to keep you in work or taking advantage of the situation to get you to do sh1t€ jobs no one wants.

Best of luck with it and keep us updated.

tringle

BTW general info for everyone. If your work hours are reduced due to Covid (or any reason) and you work 3 days or less you are entitled to Jobseekers for the days not worked.

Dempo1

saskiaharpe wrote: »

Company sent us home again with the level 5 restrictions and have been told that there will be no work until beginning of January '21. Contract is "zero hours" type. We usually don't get any work in December each year which is normal due to nature of this business (which is fine so we can take all of our holidays in one go).
Couple of days later we get an email saying that they found "some" work for us and to confirm our availability. The work they found is not what we were hired for(example: got hired as a chef but a client of our company has some spaces free as cleaners and we're supposed to take that position now). Is this right? Are we obligated to take such random job positions?

Email from the company also stated that we need to be careful because the company is offering us jobs and if we apply for PUP we will commit fraud and we will be reported to the Revenue Commissioners straight away as we are committing an offence.

What are your thoughts on this?
Before anyone says that we're just trying to avoid working and just sitting on gov benefits, we have been working everyday since the pandemic started. It's just the way this email was addressed to us that makes my heart rate go up.

Absolutely disgraceful behaviour by this company, the audacity of actually putting claims of potential fraud in an email speaks volumes on the type of company you work for.

It's really quite simple. If you were laid off as a result if the pandemic, you are entitled to claim PUP. Heresay is not an unqualifying condition, this carry on disgusts me.

Your employer is NOT contacted regarding your application, all that is verified is your earnings for 2019 and or Jan/Feb 2020, you need to have earnings, PRSI deductions etc to be approved for payment, your previous earnings dictate the level of PUP you get also.

Save that email and get signed up ASAP, if you've not been on pup before, easiest way is to set up basic mywelfare account, you'll need valid email and mobile number to hand. Your employer details, name address etc.

Dempo1

tringle wrote: »

BTW general info for everyone. If your work hours are reduced due to Covid (or any reason) and you work 3 days or less you are entitled to Jobseekers for the days not worked.

Correct but only if hours reduced, PUP applicable if fully laid off, Job loss as OP seems to suggest. Heresay by an employer, just unacceptable and insinuation of fraud and in an email, just outrageous.

Dempo1

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I think it sounds like the company has no work for you, and has made an effort to try to find something alternative if you want it.

I don't know if people on zero hour contracts qualify for redundancy, but if they do, check out this:

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

"If your employer makes you a reasonable offer of alternative work, and you refuse it, you may lose your entitlement to a redundancy payment. Generally, alternatives which involve a loss of status or worsening of the terms and conditions of your employment would not be considered reasonable."

So I think with your example (chef -> cleaner) you'd be safe.

Based on the info supplied by op, I doubt this company understands the concept on redundancy, let alone basic employee rights.

If there is any ambiguity surrounding actual work available, whatever the role, the employee needs to make a decision based on their needs. Going on PUP will not affect any of their employment rights, the company in time can consider in time an offer of redundancy or if not applicable, just lay off staff fully, neither affect a PUP application, infact they stregten it.

My sense from OP is the employer can not offer any assurances and if currently laid off, they need to apply for PUP and at least secure income until employer sorts themselves out.

OMM 0000

Dempo1 wrote: »

Based on the info supplied by op, I doubt this company understands the concept on redundancy, let alone basic employee rights.

How did you come to that conclusion?

From what it sounds like, (1) the OP isn't looking for work and (2) the employer has offered alternative work. That means the OP is not entitled to PUP.

Of course the OP can easily fix (1), but (2) will be a challenge.

Threatening employees in an e-mail is obviously stupid. If the employer is going to go down this route (again, stupid), they should do it face to face. However I would like to see the wording of the e-mail as the OPs translation may be harsh.

Dempo1

OMM 0000 wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion?

From what it sounds like, (1) the OP isn't looking for work and (2) the employer has offered alternative work. That means the OP is not entitled to PUP.

Of course the OP can easily fix (1), but (2) will be a challenge.

Threatening employees in an e-mail is obviously stupid. If the employer is going to go down this route (again, stupid), they should do it face to face. However I would like to see the wording of the e-mail as the OPs translation may be harsh.

We can agree to disagree but it's clear the OP was laid off and then recieved at best an ambiguous offer of work, nothing solid or assured, indeed the clear bullying tactics employed by the employer suggest one coukd take with the smallest grain of salt any promises said employer offers.

The crux of the matter is the employee, if laid off as a result of the pandemic and of course if they qualify re earnings etc is categorically entitled to claim PUP.

Hersay, ambiguous promises after the fact do not disqualify a claimant from making the claim, they can decide after the fact if an offer of employment is genuine and at such a level, the employee could sign off. My main point is the outrageous claim by any employer to arbitrarily bullying employees caught up in this pandemic difficulties not to sign up for PUP ligitmately is outrageous and disgraceful.

PUP as absolutely nothing to do with an employer.

Mrs OBumble

Dempo1 wrote: »

We can agree to disagree but it's clear the OP was laid off and then recieved at best an ambiguous offer of work, nothing solid or assured, indeed the clear bullying tactics employed by the employer suggest one coukd take with the smallest grain of salt any promises said employer offers.

The crux of the matter is the employee, if laid off as a result of the pandemic and of course if they qualify re earnings etc is categorically entitled to claim PUP.

Hersay, ambiguous promises after the fact do not disqualify a claimant from making the claim, they can decide after the fact if an offer of employment is genuine and at such a level, the employee could sign off. My main point is the outrageous claim by any employer to arbitrarily bullying employees caught up in this pandemic difficulties not to sign up for PUP ligitmately is outrageous and disgraceful.

PUP as absolutely nothing to do with an employer.

The OP is on a zero hours contract. You cannot be laid off from something that promises you nothing.

Reminding the employees that any income must be reported by the employer to Revenue is not bullying. If anything its providing information to the employees about how things work.

Dempo1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OP is on a zero hours contract. You cannot be laid off from something that promises you nothing.

Reminding the employees that any income must be reported by the employer to Revenue is not bullying. If anything its providing information to the employees about how things work.

Absolutely irrelevant, Zero Contract hours, Full contract hours, Part time contracts etc are all covered, not in name but in meaning. The Rules clearly state, if you've lost your Job including partime employees and indeed students, you qualify, I'm not sure what part of this your not understanding.

Let's be pedantic for a second, Zero contracts essentially equate to part time employment.

The application does not ask or differeciate between types of contract, they are irrelevant. There's as many students and part time employee's on PUP as there is full time employee's.

So forget about Zero Contracts they've absolutely nothing to do with qualifying criteria, NOTHING!

With regard to any employer reporting an employee to Revenue, they have that entitlement but again, I remind you of the fact the OP was laid off, beyond that employer can report employee to the pope for all it will achieve, besides I'm not entirely convinced the particular employer would want to raise anything with Revenue.

Finally Revenue do not administor PUP, SW do and their primary concern is the payroll information submitted by revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

OMM 0000

Dempo1 wrote: »

We can agree to disagree but it's clear the OP was laid off and then recieved at best an ambiguous offer of work, nothing solid or assured, indeed the clear bullying tactics employed by the employer suggest one coukd take with the smallest grain of salt any promises said employer offers.

The crux of the matter is the employee, if laid off as a result of the pandemic and of course if they qualify re earnings etc is categorically entitled to claim PUP.

Hersay, ambiguous promises after the fact do not disqualify a claimant from making the claim, they can decide after the fact if an offer of employment is genuine and at such a level, the employee could sign off. My main point is the outrageous claim by any employer to arbitrarily bullying employees caught up in this pandemic difficulties not to sign up for PUP ligitmately is outrageous and disgraceful.

PUP as absolutely nothing to do with an employer.

We'd really need to see the e-mail as we don't know how serious the alternative work offer is.

Mrs OBumble

Dempo1 wrote: »

With regard to any employer reporting an employee to Revenue, they have that entitlement but again, I remind you of the fact the OP was laid off, beyond that employer can report employee to the pope for all it will achieve, besides I'm not entirely convinced the particular employer would want to raise anything with Revenue.

Finally Revenue do not administor PUP, SW do and their primary concern is the payroll information submitted by revenue. Nothing more, nothing less.

Employers now have an OBLIGATION, not just an entitlement, to report any wage payment to Revenue, before it is made, to ensure that the correct tax is deducted.

This employer likely knows that Revenue now tell Welfare about this. So while Revenue don't administer PUP, they do play rolw in detecting fraudulent claims, or ones that should be on X's and O's jobseekers rather than PUP.

tringle

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Employers now have an OBLIGATION, not just an entitlement, to report any wage payment to Revenue, before it is made, to ensure that the correct tax is deducted.

This employer likely knows that Revenue now tell Welfare about this. So while Revenue don't administer PUP, they do play rolw in detecting fraudulent claims, or ones that should be on X's and O's jobseekers rather than PUP.

The employee currently doesnt have any wage payment. They were sent home from work due to level 5 restrictions and told they wont have any work until Jan 2021 so there is no wage payment to report to Revenue. This situation is the exact scenario that PUP was set up for.

Revenue have access to your Social Welfare record. Social Welfare have access to your Revenue employment record. When you apply for PUP or Jobseekers, Social Welfare will check your Revenue record to confirm you are not receiving a wage (or reduced wage for Xs and Os) before awarding any payment.

The issue here is has the OP actually been temporarily laid off if they have been offered other employment with the company. If they can clearly state X was my job and X is not available to me until Jan then yes they qualify for PUP. If however for example their contract employs them as a General Operative and General Operative A is no longer offered but General Operative B is that is a different issue.
OP I dont see that you have anything to lose in applying for PUP if you wish. Online spplication with maybe some follow up paperwork. It is not your employers right to determine if you do.

Tens of thousands of people are receiving PUP because their current role isnt avaible to them. Back office admin staff are receiving PUP while their company may be advertising for extra cleaning staff to keep the essential areas running. They arent denied PUP because their company has other vacancies.

Dempo1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Employers now have an OBLIGATION, not just an entitlement, to report any wage payment to Revenue, before it is made, to ensure that the correct tax is deducted.

This employer likely knows that Revenue now tell Welfare about this. So while Revenue don't administer PUP, they do play rolw in detecting fraudulent claims, or ones that should be on X's and O's jobseekers rather than PUP.

It's not about obligation, Revenue and SW have shared data for years, again, I'm not getting your point, the employee if laid OFF because of pandemic has an absolute entitlement to claim PUP, if there hours reduced, yes x & Os, but that is NOT what the OP"S stated position is.

Dempo1

tringle wrote: »

The employee currently doesnt have any wage payment. They were sent home from work due to level 5 restrictions and told they wont have any work until Jan 2021 so there is no wage payment to report to Revenue. This situation is the exact scenario that PUP was set up for.

Revenue have access to your Social Welfare record. Social Welfare have access to your Revenue employment record. When you apply for PUP or Jobseekers, Social Welfare will check your Revenue record to confirm you are not receiving a wage (or reduced wage for Xs and Os) before awarding any payment.

The issue here is has the OP actually been temporarily laid off if they have been offered other employment with the company. If they can clearly state X was my job and X is not available to me until Jan then yes they qualify for PUP. If however for example their contract employs them as a General Operative and General Operative A is no longer offered but General Operative B is that is a different issue.
OP I dont see that you have anything to lose in applying for PUP if you wish. Online spplication with maybe some follow up paperwork. It is not your employers right to determine if you do.

Tens of thousands of people are receiving PUP because their current role isnt avaible to them. Back office admin staff are receiving PUP while their company may be advertising for extra cleaning staff to keep the essential areas running. They arent denied PUP because their company has other vacancies.

My god, someone other than me trying to confirm the Facts, thank you

Stateofyou

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OP is on a zero hours contract. You cannot be laid off from something that promises you nothing.

Reminding the employees that any income must be reported by the employer to Revenue is not bullying. If anything its providing information to the employees about how things work.

This is not a factual statement. In reality the law around zero hours contract has changed with the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018, and as another poster has pointed out, it is essentially part time work which is further strengthened as employees now have an entitlement to pay within banded hours.

Section 18 of the OWTA entitles an employee who is not given work of least 25% of the time the employer requires them to be available, to be entitled to payment for 25% of the contract hours or fifteen hours, whichever is less.

Dempo1

Stateofyou wrote: »

This is not a factual statement. In reality the law around zero hours contract has changed with the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018, and as another poster has pointed out, it is essentially part time work which is further strengthened as employees now have an entitlement to pay within banded hours.

Section 18 of the OWTA entitles an employee who is not given work of least 25% of the time the employer requires them to be available, to be entitled to payment for 25% of the contract hours or fifteen hours, whichever is less.

Again completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, All employees, part time, full time, anytime that meet the previous earning criteria are entitled to claim PUP. There is absolutely NO differencing between the type of employment the claimant is in, indeed students who again, met the previous earnings criteria, continue to be entitled to and recieve PUP.

The main point relating to the OP original question relates to them being clearly laid off irrespective of ambiguous promises from the employer and if they we're entitled to claim PUP.

Stateofyou

Dempo1 wrote: »

Again completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, All employees, part time, full time, anytime that meet the previous earning criteria are entitled to claim PUP. There is absolutely NO differencing between the type of employment the claimant is in, indeed students who again, met the previous earnings criteria, continue to be entitled to and recieve PUP.

The main point relating to the OP original question relates to them being clearly laid off irrespective of ambiguous promises from the employer and if they we're entitled to claim PUP.

Completely agree, I should have stated that as well. I decided to only address the inaccuracy in the other post I quoted.

I believe you're absolutely right in that regard.

I also don't think the role of chef to cleaner in the same company, in this situation, would be an acceptable course of action to pursue.

Dempo1

Stateofyou wrote: »

Completely agree, I should have stated that as well. I decided to only address the inaccuracy in the other post I quoted.

I believe you're absolutely right in that regard.

I also don't think the role of chef to cleaner in the same company, in this situation, would be an acceptable course of action to pursue.

Hopefully sorted by now