ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010316

Complaint:

ActComplaint Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00013662-001 04/09/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 4th September 2017, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 10th November 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication. The respondent, an individual trading as a named entity, attended and was accompanied by his accountant.   In accordance with section39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.  

Background:

The complainant claims an entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. The respondent does not dispute the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that he did not receive a redundancy lump sum payment following the closure of the respondent business. He started working for the respondent on the 26th July 2005 and his employment came to an on the 22nd April 2017. The shop closed. They were expecting to shop to close but did not know when. There were no breaks in his service with the respondent. There was also no offer of alternative work. The complainant stated that his gross weekly wage was 500 euro.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

At the outset of the adjudication, the respondent confirmed that he was the proper respondent and operated as a trading name. He said that there was no real issue with the complainant’s entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. The biggest problem was with the previous accountant. He had left it to the accountant to manage the three redundancies, but this accountant did not do anything. The respondent had since engaged a new accountant (in attendance at the adjudication) and they had now processed the application. The respondent stated that it had received and filed the complainant’s RP50.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant is a bike engineer and worked for the respondent between the 26th July 2005 and the 22nd April 2017. The complainant was paid €500 per week. The business closed and the complainant’s employment came to an end. He was made redundant and is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment. I determine that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act, based on the following information: Date of commencement of employment: 26th July 2005 Date of end of employment: 22nd April 2017 Weekly gross pay: €500 per week

Decision:

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-00013661-001 I decide that, pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 - 2014, the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum calculated according to the following criteria: Date of start of employment: 26th July 2005 Date of end of employment: 22nd April 2017 Average weekly gross pay: €500 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment.  

Dated:   09/02/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Key Words: Redundancy Payments Act