ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025520

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Complainant	A respondent

Complaint(s):

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-00032447-001	23/11/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/01/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 29 September 2008 until 10 June 2019 on a CE Scheme. No notice was given to the applicant as she was only notified upon her termination.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submitted that this is a redundancy position as she was made redundant when the company closed down. Although she moved to a different position with the same conditions the following day, the two employers were unconnected and the third party that assisted with finding the new position was not her employer.

The complainant submitted that she was entitled to redundancy as her position was lost as the company was being wound up.

The complainant also submitted that although the company was wound up, it is still listed with the Companies Registration Office as operating normally.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not dispute the complainant’s versions of events but noted that it was not functioning. The respondent submitted that the complainant left her employment to go to another position before the company ceased functioning.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant was employed by the respondent for almost eleven years. The company had advance notice that its funding was being terminated and a third party intervened to arrange for the complainant to move employment to another employer on the same terms and conditions. The meeting to arrange this change in employment was arranged for the same time as the Board of the respondent company was meeting to discuss the wind-up of its activities. This arrangement arose as a direct result of the winding-up of the respondent company. Accordingly, I consider that this

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014 states, inter alia, that

(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 F18 [ four years ] ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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 purposes 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,

Having considered the evidence presented to me, I find that the respondent had formed the intention to cease activities and that the arrangements were made for the complainant to take up alternative employment with another (unconnected) employer when her position was done away with. Considering all the circumstances, I find that this amounts to a redundancy situation and the complainant is entitled to rely on the provisions of the Acts.

Section 19 of the Acts states, inter alia, that:

(1) Upon the dismissal by reason of redundancy of an employee who is entitled under this Part to redundancy payment, or where by virtue of section 12 an employee becomes entitled to redundancy payment, his employer shall pay to him an amount which is referred to in this Act as the lump sum.

I am satisfied that the complainant has established that she is entitled to a lump sum upon redundancy.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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.

Having considered all the information presented to me, my decision is that the complainant has established the existence of a redundancy situation and is entitled to succeed with her complaint.

I award the complainant a redundancy lump sum at the statutory level, calculated on the following information: her start date was 29 September 2008, her final date of employment was 10 June 2019 and her gross pay €542.84.

Dated: 05-03-2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes

Key Words:

Redundancy, statutory lump sum.