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-00017471-001

16/02/2018

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

CA-00017818-001

08/03/2018

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

CA-00017818-003

08/03/2018

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Lithographic Printer on 15 September 2007. His employment ended on 17 November 2017 when he was informed by the Respondent that he was being let go.

Background:

The Complainant stated that he was unaware of any problems with the Respondent's business until November 2017. The Complainant stated that, approximately two weeks prior to being advised by the Respondent that the business was in difficulty and that he was being let go, he noted that two of the main printing machines were removed from the premises.

According to the Complainant's evidence, on 17 November 2017 he was called into the office by the owner of the company and told that things were going badly and that they could not afford to pay all the employees and that some people were being let go.

The Complainant stated that he was one of the people to be let go. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that he had no prior notice of the impending situation. According to Complainant when he asked about redundancy, he was informed by the Respondent that the company's accounts were frozen and they were not in a position to pay redundancy.

According to the Complainant's evidence, a search of the Companies Registration Office shows that the Respondent is still registered. It was further stated that letters were sent to the Respondent, by registered post, on 27 March 2018, seeking redundancy, payment in lieu of notice, wages due and annual leave remuneration.

The Complainant stated that a letter, dated 29 March 2018, was sent to the Data Protection Officer of the Respondent, requesting a copy of any/all information kept on computer or in manual form in relation to the Complainant's employment, in line with the Data Protection Acts (1988 – 2003). The Complainant stated that he received no reply to any of the above correspondence.

Substantive case:

The Complainant made three separate complaints - two under the Redundancy Payment Act 1967, (CA-00017471-001 and CA-00017818-001) and one under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 relating to payment of outstanding wages and annual leave (CA-00017818-003) respectively.

With regard to the redundancy claim, the Complainant is seeking payment of redundancy based on 10.18 years’ service, which calculates amounts to €7,710.96

With regard to outstanding wages, the Complainant states that the Respondent did not pay him his last week's wages, which amounted to €361.07. In addition, the Complainant states that he is owed €216.64 in relation to outstanding annual leave.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any written responses to the complaint.

The Complainant submitted two claims under the Redundancy Payment Act. However, on investigation it is clear that both claims refer to the same situation and that the claim under reference CA-00017818-001 was actually a refiling of the original claim under reference CA-00017471-001.

Given that the Complainant's other complaints, those under the Payment of Wages Act, were submitted under complaint reference CA-00017818-003, his claim for redundancy is considered under reference CA-00017818-001 and, consequently, no decision is issuing in relation to claim reference CA-00017471-001.

CA-00017818-001 – Redundancy Payments Act, 1967:

Section 7 (2) of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967, states as follow:

“For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if 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 purpose 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, or 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.

Having carefully considered the evidence presented by the Complainant and in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, I am satisfied that, in the context of the above section from the Act, the Complainant’s dismissal from the Respondent's employment represents dismissal by reason of redundancy.

Consequently, I find that the Complainant's claim for redundancy, as calculated, is well founded.

CA-00017818-003 - Payment of Wages Act:

Having carefully considered the evidence presented by the Complainant and in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, I find that his claims under this Act are well founded and I find in his favour in relation to the sums claimed relating to unpaid wages (€361.07) and outstanding annual leave (€216.64).

Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and based on the considerations/findings as detailed above, I find as follows:

CA-00017818-001 – Redundancy Payments Act, 1967:

I find that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and, therefore, find in his favour in the amount of €7,710.96, which represents his statutory entitlement, as calculated by him, under the Act.

CA-00017818-003 - Payment of Wages Act:

I find that the Complainant’s claims under this Act are well founded and I find in his favour in relation to the sums claimed under unpaid wages (€361.07) and outstanding annual leave (€216.64), making a total award of €577.71. This amount is subject to the normal statutory deductions in relation to salary/wages.

Redundancy

Payment of Wages