Employer ceased employment for temp lay-off

screamer

Ok so this happened to a friend of mine and wondering if it’s correct. I used to work in payroll area years ago and it doesn’t seem right to me so here goes

Friend was laid off temporarily with the covid shutdowns. Returning to work this week, and checking the revenue details, their employer ceased their employment when they were put on temp lay-off. It has been re-registered now but there are 2 separate records on ros.

Now to me it is not correct to cease someone’s employment when in temporary lay-off I know I never did it, but has this changed?

My friends biggest concern is that this was a sneaky move by the company to break their time in service so that if redundancies are needed later in the year, the employer won’t have to pay out.

Worth noting too my friend has no contract and never got one.

GerardKeating

Did you friend get the €350 a week PUP, or did the employer claim the wage subsidy?

dreamers75

How long is the mate there? Redundancy may not be an issue if there is no contract and its not that long.

Company would be technically correct in suspending employment to ensure no issues with revenue when your buddy collects the 350 (if they did)

The payment was for people with no jobs or subsidised so the mate falls into the former.

screamer

Claimed the pup and has been there over 4 years don’t see how it makes a difference regarding the revenue they’ll tax the pup anyways so, I see no point in what they did.
I might post over in the accounting section they might have a better idea of the business end of this

GerardKeating

screamer wrote: »

Claimed the pup and has been there over 4 years don’t see how it makes a difference regarding the revenue they’ll tax the pup anyways so, I see no point in what they did.
I might post over in the accounting section they might have a better idea of the business end of this

But your friend could only claim the PUP IF he was been laid off..??

neris

We had issues in our company with staff receiving no payments on pup so they were taken off payroll but they were never ceased in such a way as they were given a P45. Its more then likely they were taken off so revenue/deasp would see the employer wouldnt be paying them and theres no break in service

Love2love

We were instructed by Revenue to cease the employment of those laid off

silent_spark

neris wrote: »

We had issues in our company with staff receiving no payments on pup so they were taken off payroll but they were never ceased in such a way as they were given a P45. Its more then likely they were taken off so revenue/deasp would see the employer wouldnt be paying them and theres no break in service

P45s aren’t a thing anymore, being taken off payroll has the same effect - it all updates automatically with Revenue. Any temporary lay off due to Covid shouldn’t affect future redundancy claims.

dreamers75

screamer wrote: »

My friends biggest concern is that this was a sneaky move by the company to break their time in service so that if redundancies are needed later in the year, the employer won’t have to pay out.

Worth noting too my friend has no contract and never got one.

I understand this now.

screamer wrote: »

Claimed the pup and has been there over 4 years don’t see how it makes a difference regarding the revenue they’ll tax the pup anyways so, I see no point in what they did.
I might post over in the accounting section they might have a better idea of the business end of this

So your mate was fine with no contract for 4 years but the sniff of a redundancy payment alerted him to this from my POV others in my industry have done this in good faith.

If he was still employed during the pup they would be liable for insurance etc

If there is redundances he would be entitled to the 4 years as he wasnt sacked/let go etc as he didnt i am assuming receive a letter of termination.

if he did receive that letter then the company is being a dick and doing what your mate thinks they are doing.