ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020496
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An employee | A company in liquidation |
Representatives | self | Did not attend. |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027038-009 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 4th January 2013 until 3rd July 2017. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 11/03/2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Respondent company went into liquidation in June 2017. At this time the Complainant made enquiries with the Workplace Relations Commission and was informed that in the first instance all employee matters regarding redundancy and pay would be addressed by the Liquidator of the company. In the course of subsequent conversations with the Liquidator it was discovered that the Complainant’s PRSI/employment status with the company had been wrongly recorded. The Complainant’s case then entered the SCOPE Appeals process in order to confirm his status. This process took the best part of 18 months to complete. During this period the Complainant spoke twice to the Workplace Relations Commission and was explicitly told that he could not bring his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission until his status as an employee had been confirmed and if required the Appeals process was played out. As soon as that decision was known and his status confirmed the Complainant proceeded to make his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. To quote the Complainant, “I could not have made it any sooner and was explicitly prevented from doing so”. In December 2018 when the Complainant contacted the Appeals office he was told that they were waiting for another complaint / appeal in Wicklow so that they could justify the cost of booking a hotel venue. When the Complainant said that he would be willing to come to a hearing in Dublin it happened quite quickly. The Complainant by letter dated 26th March 2019 and addressed to the Workplace Relations Commission states: “I could not have made the Complaint to the WRC any earlier than I did as the system explicitly prevented me from doing so. I attach a copy of the Appeal decision to clarify matters and I trust you will now re-open the complaints so that they may be considered properly and investigated at the earliest opportunity “. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent / Liquidator did not attend the hearing of the complaint. By email dated 02/05/2019 and sent to the WRC Case Officer the Liquidator provided a summary of events pertaining to the Complainant and stated that the Liquidator is not opposing the Complainant’s claim. This email also suggested that it may be more appropriate in this case for the DEASP case manager to attend the hearing of the complaint rather than the Liquidator.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as amended, at section 24 (1) states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment- (a) The payment has been agreed and paid, or (b) The employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or (c) A question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39”. Section 24 (2A) states – “Where an 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 adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled”. My decision in the instant case is that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum and this should now be paid to him. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 lump sum payment should now be made to the Complainant. |
Dated: May 23rd 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Redundancy payment; extension of time. |