Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Electrician

An Electrical Supply Company

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-00026926-001

11/03/2019

The Complainant is seeking statutory redundancy as a result of the business closing down.

The Complainant was employed as an Electrician and commenced employment on March 8th 2007. He was informed that there was no work as the business was closing down and made redundant on May 19th 2017 by the Owner. The Complainant submitted a claim for redundancy to the WRC on March 11th 2019. He advised he had been in consultations with the Department of Social Welfare regarding his redundancy during that period but had been refused any payment. He was earning approximately 877.50 Euros per week. He is claiming statutory redundancy.

I am satisfied the Respondent was notified of the date, time and place of Hearing but was not present at the Hearing.

A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission on March 11th 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 July 9th 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 May 19th 2017. He submitted his claim form to the WRC on March 11th 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 discussions with the Department of Social Welfare 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. It is noted the Department of Social Welfare did not approve a redundancy payment for the Complainant, however the reasons for this refusal were not available or presented to the Hearing. It is not within the remit of the Adjudicator to assess the Complainants eligibility under the Social Welfare Acts outlined below to determine his qualification for a redundancy payment under those Acts.

I am satisfied that the Complainants ongoing engagement with the Department of Social Welfare 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 as the Respondent company is in liquidation.

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 closing down in May 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; March 8th 2007

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: May 19th 2017

Gross Weekly Wage: 877.50 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 claim