Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Employee

Employer

Representatives

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-00023958-001

11/12/2018

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments AC5 1967-2014 and has submitted that they did not receive the correct redundancy payment (CA-00023958-001).

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent Company (Company B) on the 1st June 2010. The Respondent Company provided professional, scientific and technical services and the Complainants role involved support services. The Complainants gross pay was €1,381.84 per month.

The Complainant was made redundant on the 11th October 2018 by the Respondent Company. The Complainant received two payments separately of €3,000.00 and €3,221.43. The latter to include her final months salary and holiday pay. The Complainants total redundancy pay amounted to €5,567.73. However, the Complainant believes she is entitled to a redundancy payment of €6,881.43 and therefore a difference of €1,313.70 and contends she was in continuous employment since 30th June 2008 with effectively the same employer.  

The Complainant contacted her employer to dispute the amount and was informed that she had been paid for 8 years and not 10 as she had worked for Company A from the 30th June 2008 until the 14th May 2010. Company A and Company B were owned by the same individual.

The Complainant was informed that Company A went into liquidation and ceased trading in May 2010 and accordingly this period of employment was not factored into her aforementioned redundancy payment.

The Complainant believed her employment was continuous as she continued to work for the same employer, her role did not change and her salary was continuous. Accordingly, the Complainant contends she was in continuous employment for ten years and is entitled to the appropriate redundancy payment for that time period. Further, the Complainant states she did not receive a P45 from Company A.

However, the Complainant did acknowledge in the course of her email dated the 26th March 2019 that the Revenue did advise that a P45 was issued on her behalf and her period of employment with Company A was from the 3oth June 2008 to the 14th May 2010.

This Complainant was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 11th December 2018.

The Respondent Company   confirmed in evidence and in previous correspondence that the Complainants employment commenced with Company B on the 1st June 2010 and submitted this can be confirmed by the Revenue record of the Complainant.

Prior to this period of employment, the Complainant was employed by Company A (in liquidation) which ceased trading in May 2010. Company B purchased the assets of Company A in August 2010. All the employees, of Company A, received the required P45’s at this time. The staff from Company A, where appropriate, received the statutory redundancy payments which were arranged by the liquidator.

A number of the employees who were made redundant from Company A were offered a position by Company B but it was made absolutely clear that this was not a continuation of their previous employment. In that respect two emails were provided from two current employees of Company B. They both confirmed that they had received their P45 and statutory redundancy in relation to Company A. They both were offered a new contract of employment with Company B and were informed that this was a separate entity from Company A and not a continuation of their former employment.

Accordingly, the Respondent Company submits that the Complainant was paid the appropriate redundancy as per their employment from the 1st June 2010 to the 11th October 2018 and was not entitled to any redundancy payment from the 30th June 2008 to the 14th May 2010.

In the course of this hearing I have carefully listened to the evidence tendered in the course of this hearing. I further note the contents of the email received from the parties with the attachments.

Section 7 (1) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012 states:

(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

( a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

( b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967-2012, 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 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…

Section 7(5) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 -2012, states-

(5) In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within      the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short-time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years

In the circumstances of this case and based on the evidence before me and in particular in light of the acknowledged confirmation from the Revenue that the Complainants period of employment with Company A was from the 30th June 2008 to the 14th May 2010, I find that the Complainants employment with Company A terminated on the 14th May 2010.

I find that the Complainants employment with Company B (the Respondent Company) commenced on the 1st June 2010 with Company B. Further, I find that Companies A an B are separate and distinct legal entities.

Accordingly, I find therefore that the complaint (CA-00023958-001) under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2012 is not well founded.

I find that the Complaint (CA-00023958-001) made pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2012, fails.

Redundancy