Complainant

Respondent

Parties

An IT Specialist

A Media IT Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 ( Withdrawn at Hearing }

CA-00009600-001

08/02/2017

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

CA-00009600-002

08/02/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00009600-003

08/02/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00009600-004

08/02/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00009600-005

08/02/2017

The Complainant worked as an IT Specialist at the Respondent company from 18 February 2013 to 26 August 2016.His salary was 2115.39 euro Gross for a 37.5 hour working week .On 8 February 2017, the complainant lodged a number of complaints to the WRC under :

1 Unfair Dismissal Legislation

2 Redundancy Payments Legislation

3 Payment of Wages Act

4 Organisation of Working Time Act.

On the day of hearing, the Complainants Solicitor withdrew the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015. The case proceeded in that vein.

CA-00009600-002 Redundancy Payments Act

The Complainant submitted that he had difficulty securing certainty in the payment of his wages and there were frequent delays. He was the sole employee of the respondent company .On 26 August, 2016; he submitted that he received a Document from a Director of the company, advising that the company was in a “precarious financial position “due to a product not being market ready.

Mr A, the Director went on to advise the complainant that his work was being outsourced and his role was to be made redundant .He stated :

“ The X Company currently does not have any capital whatsoever and is not in a position to discharge the statutory redundancy payment ,…which would need to be processed by our accountant through the Insolvency Payments Section “

The Complainant submitted that he was assured that his lump sum redundancy payment would be paid by one of the Directors .This did not follow as planned. He ceased work on August 26, 2016.

The Complainants Solicitor submitted that the Company was not presently trading and neither was it insolvent .She submitted that she had sought to obtain information on the claims and none was forthcoming .The Complainant sought a lump sum redundancy payment of 4,824 euro. The Complainants Solicitor confirmed that the Respondent had admitted that Redundancy was unpaid.

The Complainant was clear that he had PRSI deducted from his salary but it was part paid to the Department of Social Protection in 2014 and 2016 and was paid in full in 2015 . He presented a copy of a payslip dated 26 February 2016.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

On 14 October 2016, the Solicitor for the Respondent, who’s Director was now resident in United States confirmed that the Respondent accountants had been instructed to make an application for a redundancy payment for the Complainant with the Insolvency Section of the Department Of Trade and Enterprise.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing and no subsequent correspondence.

Findings and Conclusions:

I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of all four claims . I allowed a period of time at the beginning of the hearing to account for any delay .The Respondent did not attend the haering or make contact .I proceeded to hear he complainants submissions .

I have considered the complainants’ written and oral submissions and based on his uncontested evidence, I accept that the complainant was dismissed by means of Redundancy in accordance with Section 7(c) of the Acts.

I order the Respondent to pay the complainant his lump sum redundancy payment of 4,824 euro based on the following details :

Date Of Commencement:   18 February , 2013

Date Of Termination:         26 August 2016

Gross weekly Pay :             2115.39 euro

This award is made subject to the Complainant being in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant periods.

CA-00009600-003 and CA-00009600-005 Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant claimed two weeks payment in lieu of his statutory two week notice period of 4,230.78 euro .He also claimed 10,576.95euro in respect of unpaid wages due to be paid up to 2 September , 2016. The Complainants representative submitted that all reasonable attempts to secure payment had proved fruitless. The Company was neither trading nor insolvent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have listened to and considered the complainants submissions which were not disputed.

CA-00009600-003 I find that the complaint is well founded and that the sum of 10,576.95 euro is properly payable to the complainant in respect of unpaid wages. I order the Respondent to pay this sum to the complainant less statutory deductions.

CA-00009600-005 I find that the complaint is well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of 4,230.78 euro in lieu of his statutory minimum notice.

CA -00009600-004 Annual Leave

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant has submitted that he had 8.4 days annual leave arising as cesser pay at the termination of his employment on 26 August 2016.This amounted to 3,553.88 euro based on a daily rate of 423.08 euro per day.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have listened to and considered the complainants submissions which were not disputed at the hearing. The Onus is on the Respondent to maintain records of annual leave and these were not made available or submitted to me by the Respondent .

I find that I accept the evidence of the complainant and find that the complaint is well founded . I order the Respondent to pay the complainant 3,553.88 euro in cesser pay .

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

1 CA-00009600-02

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. I have found that the Complainant is entitled to be paid his lump sum payment by the Respondent of 4,824.00 euro.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act , 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in relation to the relevant redress provisions under the Act .I have found that both complaints were upheld .I order the Respondent to pay the complainant 10,576.95 as compensation less statutory deduction in respect of unpaid wages .I further order the Respondent to pay the Complainant 4,230.78 in respect of minimum notice

4 .CA -00009600-004

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in relation to the relevant redress provisions under the Act.

I have found that the complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the complainant cesser pay of 3,553.88 euro.

The Cumulative Awards for these claims amount to 23, 275.61 euro.

Redundancy, Annual Leave, Minimum Notice, Unpaid Wages.