ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015088

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A welder	A metal fabrication company

Representatives

Complaint:

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-00019617-001	06/06/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/09/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on September 26th 2018 and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant attended on his own and was not represented. The respondent did not attend and I note that all the correspondence sent by the WRC to the respondent was returned.

Background:

The respondent company was engaged in steel and pipework and one of its major contracts was at the water treatment plant in Ringsend in Dublin. This complaint is about the non-payment of redundancy following the closure of the company.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant worked as a welder and he commenced employment with the respondent on April 7th 2013. On April 13th 2018, all the employees were informed that the company was closing down in one week and the complainant’s employment was terminated on April 20th. There was no discussion about redundancy payments and the complainant said that the owner of the company removed the containers out of which the business operated and he “went back to England.”

The complainant received no further information and no redundancy payment. On June 6th 2018, he submitted a complaint to the WRC.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Findings and Conclusions:

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is:

“(a) the fact 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,”

As the complainant’s employer has ceased operations in the place where he was employed, his job has become redundant.

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

Subject to his PRSI contribution status, I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, based on his service from April 7th 2013 until April 20th 2018.

Dated: 18th October, 2018