ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION 

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005321

Complaints for Resolution:

 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Parties : Courier -v- Motor Parts Distributor

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or whersoever might otherwise be specified, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.

The Complainant herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution under the Employment Information Act of 1994 and has further brought a claim for payment out of his Redundancy entitlements under the under the Redundancy Payments Acts in circumstances where his employer has failed to make the payment.

The Workplace Relations Complaint form is dated the Section 27 of October 2016 and has been issued within the relevant time limits. 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The Complainant submitted a booklet of relevant documents. The Complainant gave evidence that he had been in the employment of the Respondent entity for upwards of 26 or 27 years. The Respondent owns and runs a Motor parts distribution business and engaged the complainant as a driver/courier for most of his career. In and around April of 2016 the Respondent indicated to the Complainant that business was bad and that he would be closing down the business and letting his long standing Employee go. The Complainant gave evidence that there was a discussion between himself and the Respondent and that it was agreed that the Complainant would make enquiries regarding the Redundancy package that he would be entitled to. 

As it happens, the Complainant was due to be married at that time and he went off on his Honeymoon and only returned at the end of May to look for his Redundancy which he had by now calculated pursuant to his entitlements stated in the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012. The Complainant sent a letter on the 1^st of June, the 28^th of June and again through Citizen Information on August of 2016. The Complainant included the appropriate RP77. 

The Complainant got no satisfaction and no response. The Complainant says that he subsequently realised that the workplace still appeared to be operational and that only he and his brother had been selected for Redundancy. A workplace relations complaint form was submitted on the 7^th of October 2016 within six months of the date of termination of the employment. 

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The Respondent produced a book of documents in support of his case. The Respondent gave his own account of the events. He stated that the business was failing and that he needed to make the Complainant Redundant. He stated that he was always on good terms with the Complainant and that there was a long standing trust which was evidence by his asking the Complainant to be Executor of his will (a fact denied by the Complainant). The Respondent was anxious to ensure that he did the right thing by the Complainant and it was in these circumstances that he agreed that he would pay the Complainant’s Redundancy by way of two tranches of cash payments. 

The Respondent stated that the finances of the company were tight and that he had had to dip into his own resources as well as borrow money from his brother to make up the sum of €28,000.00 to be paid to the Complainant. The Respondent’s brother confirmed that he had lent the Respondent a sum of €15,000.00 last year, though why and for what purpose was not made known to him at the time. 

The Respondent says he gave the Complainant the two tranches of money at specified times and places and that there was an additional handover of a van – and ownership of the van was noted to have changed in accordance with the Respondent’s evidence.

Decision:

I have carefully considered the evidence offered by both the Complainant and the Respondent both of whom were represented and both of whom had the veracity of their evidence tested by the other side. I am satisfied that a redundancy has arisen and both parties gave evidence to this effect.

There is a clear conflict as to whether the redundancy payment which is due and owing has in fact been paid. The employee says not and the employer says it has been.

On balance I am inclined to accept the employee’s version of events and find that he has received no redundancy lump sum and that one should be paid to him in accordance with his entitlements in law. In the circumstances the following information needs to be noted under the Redundancy Payments Acts:

The Complainant commenced his employment on 1^st of April 1989.

The Complainant’s employment ended on the 20^th of May 2016.

The Complainant earned a sum in excess of €600.00 per week but understands that this ceiling must apply.

Having regard to the complaint made under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, I find the complaint well founded and award €100.00.

Dated:   12^th June 2017