Complainant

Respondent

Parties

{A Spray Painter}

{An Automobile Business}

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-00013203-001

19/08/2017

The Complainant is seeking his entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. The Respondent claims that it cannot pay redundancy.

The Complainant claims that he commenced employment as a spray painter with the Respondent on 4 July 2014.   He claims that he was paid €600 gross and €502.54 net per week. The Complainant worked approx. 40 hours per week.

The Complainant claims that he was given notice on the closure of the Respondent on 4 April 2017. He claims that he spoke with the Manager about his redundancy who he claims said that the redundancy payment would be paid in his final pay cheque. However, it was not included when the final payment was received.

The Complainant said that he made several attempts to speak with the Respondent to get information about his entitlements. However, he claims that he was not able to get anywhere. He claims that when he did manage to speak with someone at the Respondents on the telephone he was aggressively shouted at. He said that he approached his manager and he was told by him that the Respondent had told the manager not to deal with the Complainant. Accordingly, he felt he had no option but to pursue a case with the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

However, prior to the Hearing the Respondent did send in a letter into the Workplace Relations Commission confirming that due to a deteriorating financial situation the Respondent had no choice but to close its operations and accordingly, could not pay redundancy to its employees. It enclosed a copy of its financial accounts as filed with the Companies Registration Office to demonstrate the Respondent’s poor financial state.

The Respondent indicated in its letter that as it did not have any employees or directors based in Ireland it might not be in attendance and asked what it should do. It stated that it would not be able to offer anything more at the hearing even if it did attend.

I am satisfied that all parties were put on notice of hearing several weeks ahead of the hearing. I am satisfied the Respondent’s emailed letter of 6 October 2017 confirms that it was on full notice of the hearing. This correspondence and the company’s financial accounts attached gives precise details of the full title of the Respondent, and I have amended the Workplace Relations Commission records accordingly to reflect this.

Based on the foregoing I am completely satisfied that there was no reason before me to postpone the Hearing and not to continue into my investigation of this case.

The Complainant gave uncontroverted evidence that his employment was terminated by way of redundancy on 4 May 2017. He was in receipt of €600 remuneration gross per week prior to his redundancy. I find as fact that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 4 July 2014 and worked there continually until his employment came to an end on 4 May 2017. I find that there were no breaks in either his continuity of service and of reckonable service during the period of his employment.

I determine that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts.

I decide that, pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts, the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment calculated as per the following criteria:

Date of commencement of employment: 4 July 2014

Date of notice of termination of employment: 4 April 2017

Date of end of employment: 4 May 2017

Weekly gross pay: €600 per week

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment.

Redundancy Payments Acts - on full notice of the hearing - entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment.