Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Restaurant

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

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-00032736-001

04/12/2019

On 4 December, 2019 , the Complainant submitted a claim for an unpaid Redundancy Lump Sum Payment .This was accompanied by an undated letter from the employer in the case , who submitted that she had leased a business for a couple of years and closed the business on 15 September 2019 “ due to severe financial difficulties “ She added that she was not in a position to pay any redundancy .

On February 4, 2020, both parties were invited to attend a hearing scheduled for 27 February 2020 Neither Party made an appearance. On Inquiry, neither party had offered any reason for their respective non-appearance.

The WRC wrote to the complainant on 7 January 2020 seeking an alternative address for the Respondent as the notification of hearing had been returned “unknown at this address”. No further correspondence was received.

The Complainant a written complaint which gave employment details as working from an unspecified date in April 2017 to 13 September 2019. She submitted that she worked a 20-25 hour working week in return for €200.00 gross pay.

She sought a payment of a Redundancy Lump sum and submitted that she had not applied for such a payment from her former employer or any other statutory body.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at hearing.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The sole document before me from that source rests on an undated letter to the complainant, which appears to confirm closure of the business and a resultant inability to cover a redundancy payment.

The Respondent was notified of the hearing at the trading centre for the business.

Both parties were invited to attend the hearing of this case on February 4, 2020. The Respondent notification was returned.

Requests from the WRC to the complainant seeking an alternative address for the Respondent went unheeded.

I am satisfied that both parties were properly notified of the hearing in this case. The notification went to the nominated trading address for the Respondent as submitted by the complainant. This was reasonable. the Complainant did not notify the WRC of an alternative address for the respondent as requested.

I was disappointed not to meet either party.

However, in the unexplained absence of either party, I permitted a 30-minute delay before commencing the hearing to allow for any eventualities for the parties.

The Complainant had not particularised her claim for Redundancy and I must conclude that her unexplained absence at hearing was unreasonable and her appeal for a Redundancy lump sum payment has not succeeded.

Decision:

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.

The Complainant has not made an appearance in the case nor has she presented the particulars of her complaint for a lump sum Redundancy Payment. I am satisfied that she was properly notified of the hearing and failed to appear.

The appeal for a Redundancy Lump sum payment has not succeeded.

Lump Sum Redundancy Payment