Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Installation Technician

A Systems Installer

Representatives

Self Represented

Not present

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-00030522-001

28/08/2019

The Complainant was claiming redundancy pay.

The Complainant was employed as an Installation Technician and commenced employment on October 27th 2015. He was informed that there was no work for him due to business needs and he was made redundant on June 1st 2018 by the Owner. On June 12th 2018 he received a letter from the Respondent stating that he was made redundant by them on June 1st 2018. The Complainant submitted a claim for redundancy to the WRC on August 28th 2019. He advised he had been in consultations with his former employer regarding his redundancy during that period but that the Respondent keep saying he had no money at the time to pay him Redundancy. He was earning 587.24 Euros per week. He is claiming statutory redundancy.

A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the Complainant on August 28th 2019 alleging that his employer /former employer contravened the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on November 4th 2019. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Hearing. I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the Hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and were not present at the Hearing.

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.

A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on August 28th 2019 alleging that his employer contravened the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in relation to him. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on November 4th 2019. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Hearing. I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the Hearing to investigate the complaint.

Section 12.2.b of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971 states the following;

“Where and employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the Tribunal (now the Adjudicator), if it is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that failure was due to reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled”.

The Complainant, in his uncontested evidence, advised he was made redundant on June 1st 2018 and had a letter from the Respondent confirming this. He submitted his claim form to the WRC on August 28th 2019, therefore his claim was submitted within the 104 weeks as outlined in Section 12.2 b of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971 and his claim is eligible for review and decision.

I am satisfied from the Complainants verbal submission that he was engaged in ongoing discussions with his former employer regarding his entitlements to a redundancy payment during the time of his termination of employment by the Respondent and the time he submitted his claim to the WRC.

I am satisfied that the Complainants ongoing engagement with his former employer meets the “reasonable cause” definition in Section 12.2.b of the Redundancy Payments Act 1971 and that the Complainant is entitled to a Decision by an Adjudicator on his claim. However, that decision is based on the full requirements of the Complainant meeting the terms of the Social Welfare Acts, as set out below, in the event that the Complainant seeks to apply to the Redundancy Fund for payment of his redundancy entitlement.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I award him statutory redundancy on the following basis;

The Complainants employment was terminated due to the business reducing operations in June 2017.

The Complainant did not receive any redundancy payment.

Section 24 of the 1967 Act states ….

Section 4.(1) of the Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.”

Therefore, subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, and subject to being confirmed by the appropriate Government Agency, I find that the complaint is well founded and the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis;

Date of Commencement; October 27th 2015

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: June 1st 2018

Gross Weekly Wage: 587.24 Euros

Hours per week: 39

The Complainants period of “Reckonable Service” is defined by Schedule 3 of the Act and does not include any period of absence from work due to lay off by the employer.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me by the Respondent, I must conclude that the within complaint is well founded and I decide accordingly.

Redundancy Pay