Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A software company employee

A software company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00017147-003

30/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00017147-004

30/01/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00017147-005

30/01/2018

The Complainant had been headhunted from his, then, employment to leave and work for the Respondent on the 4th December 2017. By the 11th December 2017 the Respondent was verbally advising staff that there were funding issues in the business. This ultimately led to the liquidation of the business.

The complainant says that he had been asked by the Respondent to join the Respondent company from another organisation that he worked for.

He joined the Respondent company on the 4th December 2017. Shortly thereafter – on the 11th December, the Respondent informed staff that he did not have funds to pay their wages as the business was going through funding difficulties. Financial backers had withdrawn their support.

The Respondent advised employees by phone call and email over the following weeks that he hoped to get the funding back on track and that “funding will come this week”.

The funding never arrived and the Complainant had gone into debt to maintain himself while still with the Respondent company until he resigned at the end of January 2018. He commenced with a new employer on the 5th February 2018.

His main concern now is to recover wages due.

The Respondent says that he established this company selling and servicing a software application.

He says he hired the Complainant and others for their expertise, but crucial to the success of the start-up was the promised financial backing he thought he had secured. There was a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing with this investment which he remained with for approximately 6 months. He held off on creditors, including the Complainant, until eventually Revenue demanded revenues owing. He then says he had no choice but to liquidate the company, which he has now done.

He says that a (named) liquidator has now been appointed. There is a meeting of creditors now advertised for 27th June and he is issuing all former employees with the necessary forms to make their submission to the liquidator for what is owing to each individual.

He said that some funds were realised in recent days arising from the purchase of the intellectual property of the business, but that these funds will be employed to offset the Revenue debt. He advised the hearing that the liquidator funds from the State Insolvency fund and that former employees will be paid from this in whatever proportion is decided by the liquidator.

The Respondent acknowledges that wages are due to the Complainant.

The Complainant was unhappy about fact that the company was in liquidation, but accepts the fact that he has now a defined route through which he can recover at least some of what is owed to him.

No further evidence was presented on the claims submitted.

The route now being pursued by the Complainant is through the liquidator.

There was no evidence presented in support of Complaint CA – 00017147 – 003.

There was no evidence presented in support of Complaint CA – 0017147 – 004.

There was mention of the Unfair Dismissal under Complaint CA – 00017147 - 005

As, in respect of Complaints CA – 17147 – 003 and 004 there was no evidence advanced in support of these complaints, then I say that these claims fail.

The Complainant did say that he was dismissed or had to leave because he was not paid. I find that he had insufficient service with the Respondent to make this claim and his claim for Unfair Dismissal under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 fails.