Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Butcher

Butchers shop

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-00011092-001

02/05/2017

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a butcher on or about the 1 November 2006. The respondent furnished a P45 to the complainant on 15 December 2016 without any prior notice. The respondent ceased to trade in January 2017.

His gross pay was €898 per week and €650 net.

The complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 2 May 2017.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in or around the 1 November 2006. The respondent terminated his employment on 15 December 2016 with no advance notice stating, “it is with great regret that I find myself having to issue you with a P45”.

The respondent informed the WRC on 5 September 2017 that it had ceased trading in January 2017. It is the complainant’s case that the respondent was in the business of winding down its business in December 2016 when it furnished the complainant with his P45. The respondent had not provided an RP50 or a lump sum declaration.

Prior to submitting his complaint under the Acts to the WRC, the complainant’s solicitor wrote to the respondent on the 18 April enclosing a signed form RP77 requesting a redundancy payment to be made to the complainant within 14 days of that date. The respondent made no reply.

For the purposes of determining his eligibility for redundancy payments, the complainant relies on section 21 of the Act and the respondent’s statement that he ceased trading in January 2017 and was as a result intent on ceasing trading at the time of the notification to dismiss him.

The complainant earned a gross salary of €898.15, net €650 per week.

He has 10 years’ service. He has an entitlement to 6 weeks’ notice for which he received no pay which would see his termination date as 26 January 2017 He accumulated a further 86 excess days (2nd November to 26 January 2017).

The complainant states that his employment was terminated on 26 January 2017 due to redundancy. He asks that his complaint under the Acts be upheld.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. No written evidence was furnished.

Two Questions arise.

Was it a genuine redundancy and if so

What obligations lie with the employer?

The grounds which must exist to satisfy the definition of genuine redundancy are set out in section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and amended by the Redundancy Payments Act 1971 and 2003 and are

”an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or  

           (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or    

       (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise.    

The uncontested evidence is that the respondent ceased to trade in January 2017 and that he was in contemplation of ceasing the business in which he employed the complainant in December 2016 when he furnished a P45 to the complainant. Based on the uncontested evidence I find that a genuine redundancy situation has arisen. The employer has ceased or intends to cease the business for which he employed the employee.

Obligations on the Employer.

Section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (amended) provides that;

“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 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 – 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 had the requisite service when the business closed down.   Based on the information presented to me at the hearing, I find that he was in insurable employment and that he was made redundant with effect from January 2017.

I find that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Acts.

I find that his start date is 1 November 2006, his termination date is 26 January 2017 and his weekly rate of pay is €895.

The maximum allowable sum is €600 per week. His reckonable period which includes the period of sick leave from 17 August- 16 December is 10.4 years x €600x2 + €600=€13,080.

I have decided that the complaint is well founded. I decide that the respondent should pay the complainant his statutory entitlement of €13,080.

Redundancy. No notice.