ADJ-00006504

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Officer Administrator

An Insurance Claim Referral Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00008738-001

12/12/2016

The complainant worked with the company since 01 July 2001. The nature of the business was that customers (who were looking to make an accident claim) would contact him through the website or the phone and he would direct them to a legally qualified client (normally solicitors) who depending on the circumstances might proceed with a claim on behalf of the customer. Around mid-2016 he was advised by some clients that owing to changes coming from their governing body the nature of the business might not be allowed to continue anymore

The complainant stated that the loss of business came as a shock and that he has been depressed since then at the loss of his livelihood. He said he never had any contact with his employer, and all work was directed to him through the clients. He had no contract of employment and he ceased receiving salary around November 2016.   During the hearing it was disclosed that the complainant might in fact be a director of the company but he was not certain. He stated that the company cannot pay redundancy and that he might, therefore, be able to apply to the government for redundancy in that case. He provided a letter from the Auditors and Accountants which highlighted that the respondent is “no longer trading and is in the process of closing down”.

The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing, and in the circumstances, I find that their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

Throughout most of the hearing the complainant referred to himself as an employee and when asked about contact he would have had with his employer, he stated that he did not have any contact with them, that he only ever had contact with the clients and that he worked from home. The details on the claim form for the respondent named a HR manager who is no longer with the company.

The business ceased owing to the business being regarded as either illegal, unethical or a business that was no longer considered appropriate by the governing body of the clients. Regardless of the reason, the complainant no longer had employment.  

Section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payments Acts provides that: 

(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

( a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

( b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

The complainant stated that the company had no money to pay him redundancy but questioned whether the government would pay him redundancy in that case. It appears that the complainant is referring to the Social Insurance Fund.   The complainant could not clarify the nature of the social insurance contributions he may have been making during his employment; therefore it is unclear whether he has social insurance contributions referred to above.

While I find it very unusual that the complainant is unsure of the nature of his employment status, I am taking into consideration that his uncertainty and vagueness may be due to his mental health issues and that he may indeed meet the requirements of being an “employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment..”.   This can be confirmed by the appropriate government agency.

Therefore, subject to the appellant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Acts, I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and award the appellant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:

Date of Commencement:        1^st July 2001

Date of Termination:               12 December 2016     

Gross Weekly Pay:                  €576.92

Subject to the appellant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Acts, I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and award the appellant a redundancy lump sum based on the following;

Date of Commencement:        1^st July 2001

Date of Termination:               12 December 2016     

Gross Weekly Pay:                  €576.92

Redundancy, employment status