Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Shipping Manager

A Freight Forwarding Firm

Representatives

None

None

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00010064-001

02/03/2017

The complainant claims an entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment after the closure of the respondent business. The complainant has been on sick leave since 2014 with a progressive neurological condition.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in January 2000. His gross pay was €2,988.56 per month and he worked a 40-hour week. The complainant was on sick leave from the 3^rd February 2014 as his progressive neurological condition meant that he was no longer able to work. After being notified of the closure of the respondent business, the complainant had not been able to get the respondent to sign the RP50 form. The respondent also stated that they were unable to pay the complainant a redundancy lump sum payment. The complainant stated that he was not invited, and nor did he attend, any meeting on the 25^th August 2016 regarding the future of the respondent business. He refers to the letter from the respondent of this date, which provides the complainant with eight weeks’ notice of the end of his employment and that the respondent was unable to continue trading.

In evidence, the complainant began on the first Monday of January 2000. He was shipping manager for European routes, in particular Italian and Spanish routes. The respondent had reduced his pay on two occasions, so that the income disclosed on his last P60 was €36,862.72 per year. Since the 3^rd February 2014, the complainant had been on Invalidity Benefit and then on Invalidity Pension. The complainant referred to the difficulties to securing income protection and since the 2^nd September 2016, this was paid directly to him. He had also submitted medical certificates every month. He received an email on the 2^nd September 2016 to say that the respondent had ceased trading on the 25^th August 2016.

In correspondence of the 5^th July 2017, solicitors for the respondent sought an adjournment due to the ill-health of a company director. The letter also states that the company was going into liquidation. The correspondence concludes that the adjudication should be adjourned to allow the RP50 be executed.

The complainant was a longstanding employee of the respondent where he managed important freight forwarding routes. The complainant developed a progressive neurological condition for which there is no treatment or cure. He went on sick leave on the 3^rd February 2014 and was on sick leave when the respondent ceased trading on the 25^th August 2016. He claims his entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. The respondent does not appear to dispute this entitlement and asks for an adjournment.

Given that there is no challenge to the complainant’s entitlements pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts, it is appropriate to proceed with this complaint. I am required to determine whether the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment and if this is the case, the terms of the entitlement.

The complainant began working for the respondent on the 4^th January 2000. He went on prolonged sick leave on the 3^rd February 2014 due to a progressive neurological condition. The respondent gave the complainant eight weeks’ notice on the 25^th August 2016. His gross pay was €2,988.56 per month.

It is clear from Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act that the complainant is entitled to count the period of the 4^th January 2000 to the 20^th October 2016 as continuous service within the definition of Schedule 3. The date of the 20^th October 2016 arises as this is the end of the eight-week notice period provided by the respondent to the complainant in the letter of the 25^th August 2016.

Schedule 3 also provides for reckonable service. It provides that in the three-year period before the end of a period of employment, an employee is entitled to include as reckonable service 26-weeks of sick leave where the sickness is not due to an occupational injury or disease. In this case, the reckonable service of the complainant commences on the 4^th January 2000 and ends on the 5^th August 2014, i.e. 26 weeks after the complainant went on sick leave.

I find that the complainant qualifies for a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts, 1967 to 2014, based on the following information:

Date of commencement: 4^th January 2000

Date of sick leave: 3^rd February 2014 to the 20^th October 2016 (of which the first 26 weeks are reckonable service)

Date of end of employment: 20^th October 2016

Weekly gross pay: €689.67

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

CA-00010064-001

I decide that, pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts, the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum calculated according to the following criteria:

Date of commencement of employment: 4^th January 2000

Date of sick leave: 3^rd February 2014 to the 20^th October 2016 (of which the first 26 weeks are reckonable service)

Date of end of employment: 20^th October 2016

Weekly gross pay: €689.67 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 and subject to the statutory wage ceiling of €600 per week.

Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 Schedule 3

Sick leave