ADJ-00016380

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Plumber

Heating Installation Company

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-00021263-001

22/08/2018

The complainant was employed as a plumber commencing employment in January 2001. The complainant was employed on a full-time basis until his employment terminated in October 2017.

The complainant was informed in October 2017 that the respondent had no work for him.

The complainant’s employment was terminated.

The complainant has not received any redundancy payment.

The respondent encountered trading difficulties in 2017.

The respondent kept the complainant in employment for as long as possible.

The respondent had no choice but to make the complainant redundant.

The facts in this case are not disputed between the parties. The respondent was engaged in the heating and plumbing installation business and employed the complainant. In 2017 the respondent found great difficulty in securing business and could not provide work for the complainant. The respondent considered attempting to secure work in Dublin but the extra hours involved in travelling would have caused difficulties for the complainant. The respondent endeavoured to keep the complainant in employment for as long as possible but by October 2017 this was no longer feasible and the respondent terminated the complainant’s employment as he had no work or prospect of work for him. The respondent accepted that the complainant was made redundant but could not pay him.

It would appear that no pay slips were issued to the complainant. The P60 form for year ending 31 December 2016 shows gross income for the complainant of €23,580.40 and further wage documentation received from the respondent shows that at the time of the termination of employment in October 2017 the gross weekly wage of the complainant was €458.26 per week.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned 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 in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c)     the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise….

Based on the evidence before me I find that the complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and that he is therefore entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act.

Complaint No. CA-00021263-001:

Based on the evidence before me I find this complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 to be well founded. The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement:       1 January 2001

Date of Termination:             29 October 2017

Gross Weekly Pay:                 €458.26

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.