ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00002090

Complaint for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24th June 2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 25^th February 2016, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts. The complainant is an agricultural worker and the respondent is a producer of agricultural products.

The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 24^th June 2016. At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the adjudication and having been satisfied of this, I proceeded with the adjudication in the respondent’s absence. The complainant was in attendance and was represented by Rostra solicitors.

In accordance with section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant worked as an agricultural worker with the respondent. He commenced employment on the 4^th November 2004. He was paid €390 per week and worked 45 hours per week. The complainant received correspondence from the respondent dated the 11^th November 2014 and the 15^th June 2015 regarding changes to his hours of work.

On the 3^rd September 2015, the respondent issued correspondence to the complainant stating that his employment would end on the 17^th September 2015. The letters refer to a downturn in the respondent’s business. The letter also contains a paragraph that states "It is regrettable that you declined the opportunity to attend for interview with a local grower and avail of alternative employment which the company secured for you. The working terms and conditions of this employment were as explained, of a similar nature to your current employment." I enquired into this statement. The solicitor representing the complainant said that he wrote to the respondent to ask about the reference to “local grower” in the letter and to express the complainant's interest in the role. The letter drafted by the solicitor on the complainant’s behalf also states that the reference to "local grower" is not an associated company within the meaning of section 16 of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967. There was no response from the respondent and no such interview or offer was made.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent did not make submissions in advance of the adjudication and did not attend the hearing. The complainant submitted correspondence issued by the respondent, dated the 11^th November 2014, the 15^th June 2015 and the 3^rd September 2015.

Findings and reasoning:

The complainant was informed of the end of his employment in correspondence dated the 3^rd September 2015. His employment ended on the 17^th September 2015. The complainant was served with a letter that refers to an offer of an interview with a local grower. The complainant wrote to signal his interest in this alternative employment, and no further information was provided by or on behalf of the respondent.

It follows that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts.

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint.

I am satisfied that a redundancy situation occurred in respect of the complainant and that he is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts, 1967 to 2014, based on the following information:

            Date of birth: 9^th March 1971

            Employment commencement date: 4^th November 2004

            Date of notice of termination: 3^rd September 2015

            Employment end date: 17^th September 2015

            Average weekly wage: €390

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during this employment.

Dated:   21^st September 2016