Government Benefits Megathread

The cynical part of me thinks this is a double intention b the gov to push people to get jobs in other sectors and additionally ensuring that redundancy will not need to be paid to workers that enviably will be laid off when all companies return to work or some permanently close

Dempo1 wrote: »

Obviously for those awaiting a call back (I'm one) its straightforward enough, being self employed I guess a little more complicated.

Were they pushy at all about a timeframe of your return? I'm also waiting on a call back but the timeline of it is entirely dependent on the government loosening the restrictions on indoor gathering numbers for events and the return of regular foreign travel, particularly with the US. I'm going to be brought back as it stands now, but it could be September or October, it all depends on when restrictions lift and the planes are full again.

If things do go awry and I have to leave my current job, I'd also be fairly peeved to be pushed into having to seek alternative employment before I can claim my fairly substantial redundancy on September 30th. That's a safety net that I won't be foregoing.

Redundancy discussion is going to have to come to the forefront soon, even just because the PUP is closed to new applicants from July 1st. People who are laid off after July 1st won't be able to claim redundancy for 3 months, which is an absolute joke really for anyone who finds themselves in that situation.

head82 wrote: »

You're spot on!
The lifting of the moratorium on redundancy applications at the end of September is not receiving any media coverage but it has to be of concern to the government.

And the timing of this gentle persuasion by the DEASP to get people to consider other forms of employment or retraining before the end of September is no coincidence.

Why all of a sudden the push? Could they not wait till September when PUP rates drop (and the economy is supposed to be fully open) and those people who have still not returned to work might be more open to alternative employment options?

I wonder will they push this out? If they don't there's going to some serious claims lodged and employers will just pass it on to government, its going to be an absolute mess I fear

Lyle wrote: »

https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1225527/



Varadkar was very clear that the current extension would be the last one. They might try roll back on it but there would surely be uproar given the PUP is already being cut from September 7th, 4 weeks earlier than people can claim their redundancy payments. Another few months extension, while they cut PUP rates again in November, would be a disgrace.

At this stage I'd take anything Leo says with a grain of salt to be honest, but yes I agree the situation is a mess.

wiz569 wrote: »

Slightly off topic but does your time on temporary layoff count towards your redundancy time? Or is it classified as a break in service.

Good question, my understanding is that as it was a forced layoff your contractual entitlements may be affected, I've no doubt there will be varying views on this.

In simple terms you remain employed during whatever the layoff period is, as such Redundancy is based on length of service, but wether your service in relation to assessing redundancy entitlement includes the time you've been laid off is not entirely clear and I suspect given the numerous extensions on the suspension of normal redundancy legislation, there is going to be legal challenges, I suspect the WRC will be dealing with a lot of disputes around this serious issue.

There is a very curious point I've noticed as part of the suspension of redundancy entitlement mentioned on the WRC website, which might be tied to the "Must be actively seeking work" eligibility criteria added after a few months to the PUP entitlement. It states on the wrc website you can take up other work and it won't affect your redundancy entitlement, this I find a little concerning because legally if you take up another position, you have in a sense left your previous Job, thereby forfeiting your redundancy entitlement. I care less about temporary legislation and more about the well established law/ rules relevant to an employees and employers obligations.

There are other entitlements people may not be aware of, such as Bank Holidays, even if laid off because of the Pandemic you are entitled when the dust settles to any bank holidays not paid, these are adding up also.

There is no straightforward answers but I sense Employers, even those who cease to trade will be prioritised over Employees whatever the final outcome. Bad enough many have lost Jobs but additional losses such as Commissions, Bonus, Holiday entitlements, allowances etc never discussed or mentioned.

I'm not Blaming employers who like employees were thrown into this through no fault of theirs. Ultimately the government will pick up the tab, the question will be how big that tab will be.

Lyle wrote: »

I queried this about a year ago with WRC, Citizens Information and an employment lawyer, with CI and the lawyer both telling me that the advice was designed to slyly move people away from their redundancy entitlements so the depleted Social Insurance Fund wouldn't have to pick up the tab. To maintain your right to redundancy you have to be available to your employer for immediate return to work and if there's any delay at all, your right to redundancy is gone.
Unsurprisingly, at a few interviews I've done this year (genuinely seeking work PUP condition box ticking), I pointed out that I would have no choice but to walk the minute my old employer made contact to protect my redundancy rights and unsurprisingly, I did not get those jobs! Better to be honest about it than leave a business in the lurch.


I've been curious about this one myself, but I don't think they'll let people claim for those entitlements for the duration of lay-off. The WRC guidelines say you get them for the first 13 weeks, and I reckon they'll stick strictly to that, although even with that caveat people will still be owed for Paddy's/Easter/May/June Bank Holidays from 2020. If they allowed people to claim all Bank Holidays throughout, employers would owe someone who was on the PUP from, say March '20 - September '21, 14 Bank Holiday days. So I'm expecting the pre-existing 13 week rule for Bank Holidays to stand to protect employers from having to pay those days or give extra time off to returning staff.

Fascinating your research re first point and I'm not at all surprised, it actually makes you wonder how they inserted the "must be looking for work" clause, quite some after pup was introduced. Fair enough we're someone has fully lost a position, p45 issued etc.

Agreed re the B/H and other entitlement lost however I still think there's going to be a lot of litigation generally. I spoke to my own solicitor (brother a high profile SC) and there has been a lot of disquiet in employment law circles.

head82 wrote: »

I raised this issue on another thread.. 'Wage Subsidy'.. re Bank Holiday pay for the first 13 weeks of layoff.
The response I received was that unless those days are claimed within the applicable year, they cannot be carried forward to the next year.
This ruling also applies to any accumulated annual holidays due.

Essentially, all those days accumulated in 2020 while on layoff are now forfeited if employee is only returning to work sometime in 2021.
I didn't delve any deeper into it and I suspect it may vary depending on individual companys policy but apparently that is the legislation.

Hi there, its all well and good an employer stating this but if an employee has essentially been blocked from claiming their entitlements (which is the case for all on layoff but still legally employed and on PUP) it raises serious questions. In essence anyone on PUP could under no circumstances recieve payment from their employer, examples included owed holiday pay etc, if they did, their PUP payment would be stopped.

I appreciate those on wage subsidy schemes in a different situation.

Bank Holidays are not classified as part of a holiday entitlement, they are a stand alone entitlement in a calander year subject to working a specified amount of hours prior to each bank holiday. They are therefore not carried over. It is clear that for a period of the 13 weeks of forced layoff, employee's entitled to payment or time in lieu for any bank holidays that fell within that period, any suggestions otherwise by an employer is factually incorrect. There is clear guidence on this very topic on the wrc and citizen's info websites.

In relation to the wage subsidy scheme, whilst I understand revenue paid a percentage of an employees weekly wage, employers could top up etc, I don't think anything beyond a weekly rate of pay was factored in but equally I would have thought for example if an employee had a bank holiday, when employer was submitting payroll that week, either this would be recorded or for example even though employee only worked 4 days, they got paid 5, if I'm making sense? I don't know enough re wage subsidy schemes to be entirely sure but of course if someone on these schemes had been laid off for 13 weeks etc and then put on wage subsidy schemes, when these end, owed bank holidays will have to be revisited by employers whether they like it or not.

head82 wrote: »

But is that not the crux of the matter? Blocked from claiming any Bank Holiday pay due within time limit allowed for fear of losing PUP entitlements.
Yet, same BH pay not officialy carried forward so therefore forfeited.

I dread to think the battle one would have on their hands in trying to claim entitled backpay under current.. and severly lacking in clarification.. guidelines.

Of course I anticipate disputes over this issue but as explained there's a 13 week rule applying to the payment of B/H. It may not of course be black and white but an entitlement is an entitlement, its not so much something being carried forward, particularly BH as they are not carried forward. I suppose a simplistic way of looking at it would be that an employee was laid off for say 14 weeks, goes back and reminds employer, they lhave not been paid or got time in liue for the bank Holidays that fell during layoff , here's the information on it. The same will apply if as in many cases, employees return after a year. The calander year should not apply to something that's not carried over.

I suppose these are exceptional circumstances in exceptional times and I'm just suggesting if we go by what the rules state, the BH that fell within the first 13 week (Pandemic) lay off remain owing or un resolved.

And yes I fully agree, the guidelines are all over the place

Lyle wrote: »

Varadkar strikes again here. He did an interview last summer where he mentioned people on PUP needing to be seeking work, around the time of all the furore last year about people on PUP going on holidays (THE HORROR) and as a direct result of that interview the seeking employment caveat was added to the PUP conditions. It was so glaringly obvious that it had been hastily amended because it took days for them to update the Irish language version of the guidelines to include the seeking work line. It was all in pursuit of covering Varadkar's arse so nobody thought he was just making conditions up as he went along, even though he was, the f*cking gowl.

They're going to have a lot of stuff to work out as we head towards September around all the other items discussed above; it's going to be a complete 'mare for employees, employers, the WRC, trade unions, the works. The nearer we get to September 30th the worse this is all going to get as the nitty gritty details are all going to need shaking out with clarity provide to all involved.
I'm going to be arming myself with all the info I can accrue in the coming weeks about it in case I need it, but you'd imagine there's already hundreds or thousands of workers who are off PUP and gone back to work and don't know they're potentially entitled to back pay or pay in lieu for Bank Holidays and Annual Leave. Lot of people have been left hanging out to dry because the government put no thought into all this.

Very Elegantly put and Ive watched from the outset, every twist and turn regarding PUP. A genuinely appreciated support but increasingly becoming a thorn in the side of Leo & Co.

I once recall the "we're in this Together" mantra, long since been replaced with PUP recepient smearing. Politically and thankfully there is support albeit primarily from the opposition.

The next few week's, months will be interesting albeit worrying for many. There's a sad other reality in all of this, alot of small businesss that have reopened will avail of that awful saying "pented up demand", when the landlords come a calling for substantial rental debts owed, banks leniency sways and government supports end those 1000"s of small businesses will close again and for good this time, probably as soon as October. Leo's belief the economy will take off like a rocket, will ultimately be the opposite ending to the sound of a damp squib.

head82 wrote: »

Precisely!
Just yesterday I had a conversation with my employer regards returning to work after 15 months of layoff.
He offered me 4 days work per week at 4 hours per day!
A total of 16 hours pay.
This would result in a substantial reduction compared to what I'm currently receiving on PUP ( pre-pandemic, I was a full time employee on an income greater than PUP rates).

He seemed baffled at my rejection of his offer. Even though I explained to him clearly the vast drop in my weekly income.

Now, I don't know where I stand as regarding my potential claim to redundancy as I have effectively turned down a request to return to work.. despite that request resulting in a severly detrimental effect to my basic living wage income.

I've tried to find info relating to this particular situation but as I stated earlier.. there's a serious lack of clarification from the relevant government bodies.

Absolutely shocking, 16 hours? My god why did he even bother offering. I'm sorry to hear this and I suspect this will happen to a lot of people, I hate to suggest it but this may also be a mechanism to avoid redundancy.

However there are some interesting points in link I'll attach, it's not quite as simple as informing an employee their hours are reducing, this potential/provision must be in your contract of employment.

It may not be of much help as you seemed to have done your own research but look through it. I won't add insult to injury but worth pointing out offering you (4 days) with reduced hours may also impact if you can claim a reduced payment benefit from SW.

Just a word of caution re refusal of this offer, you'll know about the PUP criteria and whilst on the surface you are completely justified so keep the eligibility criteria at the back of your mind.

Remain positive, if at all possible

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

Dempo1 wrote: »

Absolutely shocking, 16 hours? My god why did he even bother offering. I'm sorry to hear this and I suspect this will happen to a lot of people, I hate to suggest it but this may also be a mechanism to avoid redundancy.

However there are some interesting points in link I'll attach, it's not quite as simple as informing an employee their hours are reducing, this potential/provision must be in your contract of employment.

It may not be of much help as you seemed to have done your own research but look through it. I won't add insult to injury but worth pointing out offering you (4 days) with reduced hours may also impact if you can claim a reduced payment benefit from SW.

Just a word of caution re refusal of this offer, you'll know about the PUP criteria and whilst on the surface you are completely justified so keep the eligibility criteria at the back of your mind.

Remain positive, if at all possible

Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.

head82 wrote: »

Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.

At present I don't believe SW actually contacting employers, but I agree that may change, whether there is data protection issues I can't say, currently employers can report employee's who refuse their Jobs back however being offered a 1/4 of your job back is absolutely not the same as being offered your actual Job back.

To date there's been very little, almost miniscule amounts of employers reporting employee's. My advice is hold fast, if you are contacted by SW, I absolutely and categorically deny you were offered your full time job back and furthermore you potentially persuing a redundancy claim.

Have you a contract of employment? If so is there any provision for your hours to be reduced?, I'm assuming your happy enough you have the service to be eligible for redundancy etc.

It's going to be cases such as yours that are going to create a stink, so hold fast, make no quick decisions.

Dempo1 wrote: »

At present I don't believe SW actually contacting employers, but I agree that may change, whether there is data protection issues I can't say, currently employers can report employee's who refuse their Jobs back however being offered a 1/4 of your job back is absolutely not the same as being offered your actual Job back.

To date there's been very little, almost miniscule amounts of employers reporting employee's. My advice is hold fast, if you are contacted by SW, I absolutely and categorically deny you were offered your full time job back and furthermore you potentially persuing a redundancy claim.

Have you a contract of employment? If so is there any provision for your hours to be reduced?, I'm assuming your happy enough you have the service to be eligible for redundancy etc.

It's going to be cases such as yours that are going to create a stink, so hold fast, make no quick decisions.

I do have a contract of employment and there is a provision for hours to be reduced in the event of downturn of business which I was aware of and agreed to.

However, I was under the assumption that having been laid off for more than 6 weeks I could trigger a redundancy claim.
Granted, that avenue has been blocked off till end of September. But when Sep. ends and I have not returned to work on my original terms and conditions, then I believed I was still eligible to claim statutary redundancy.

Dempo1 wrote: »

A few years ago employers could claim for any redundancy payments made so there was little net cost to them, all that has since changed and now they can't claim any refunds. Currently if an employer fails or is unable to pay redundancy, then the government step in, for an employer to claim they can't afford to pay, they have to prove it.

I had a hope that Government would come up with a mechanism to help employers with this issue but such is the cost of this and the pandemic, it's unlikely. I still believe you should hold fast.

I think all they've offered so far is an interest free loan to employers to pay a redundancy from the Social Insurance Fund rather than the pre-pandenic practice of basically having to declare insolvency almost for the SIF to step in and pay the employees package.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-to-offer-interest-free-loans-to-firms-struggling-to-pay-redundancy-1.4583286

“Companies genuinely unable to pay will be able to get an interest-free loan from the Social Insurance Fund,” Mr Varadkar said in the letter.

ICTU have been crawling all over them more than others about these things, so I think the likes of Dr. Laura Bambrick and others high in that organisation are going to play a key part in keeping these discussions live in the media as we progress through summer.

head82 wrote: »

Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.

Cannot change hours and pay without consultation - this is a bare minimum, I'll say there will be plenty of WRC cases next year essentially having to pay statutory redundancy up to the max of 2 years salary as that is the max WRC can apply.