Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Chris  Mooring

Layertite Limited

Representatives

Mr Frank Trappe, Citizens Information Service

 No Appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00032130-001

12/11/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00032130-002

12/11/2019

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st July 2009. The Complainant was engaged as a permanent, full-time employee. Towards the end of his employment he received a weekly payment of €800.00. The Complainant’s employment was terminated by the Respondent on 30th July 2019. On 12th November 2019 he lodged the present complaints with the Commission.

A hearing in relation to these matters was convened for 24th May 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. At the outset of the hearing the parties’ attention was drawn to the recent ruling of the the Supreme Court in the matter of Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24. The parties were informed of the procedural changes applicable to the hearing arising from the judgment. Having informed the parties of the import of this ruling, they confirmed that they wished to proceed with the hearing.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing as scheduled, nor did they arrange any form of representation or make an application to adjourn the same. Having reviewed the file I am confident that the notice of the hearing, and all other relevant documentation was issued to the correct contact details and that the Respondent was on notice of the proceedings and hearing.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st July 2009. On 30th July 2019, the Complainant received correspondence to the effect that the Respondent was to cease trading on that date and that his role was to be made redundant. The Complainant’s employment terminated on this date without prior notification or payment in lieu of notice.

On the 28th August 2019, the Complainant’s representative wrote to the Respondent seeking payment of the outstanding redundancy sum and other termination payments. No response was received to this and other subsequent communications.

On the date of the hearing the Respondent was listed as trading normally on the Companies Registration Office website and no liquidator had been appointed to the same.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing as scheduled, nor did they arrange any form of representation or make an application to adjourn the same.

Having reviewed the file I am confident that the notice of the hearing, and all other relevant documentation was issued to the correct contact details and that the Respondent was on notice of the proceedings and hearing. In the circumstances, the matter proceeded in the absence of the Respondent.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act defines a redundancy in the following terms;

“…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 regard to the contents of the correspondence of the 30th July 2019, it is apparent that the Respondent made the Complainant redundant on that date. Given that this was the last date of employment, it is also apparent that the Respondent did not abide by the relevant obligations regarding statutory notice.

CA-00032130-001 – Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act

I find in favour of the Complainant and consequently find that the complaint referred under the Act is well-founded.

In this regard, Section 4(1) of the Act provides that when an employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, he is entitled to six weeks of notice. Section 12 of the Act empowers me to award compensation to the Complainant for any loss sustained due to the Respondent’s contravention of the Act.

In the circumstances, I award the Complainant the sum of €4,800, or the equivalent of six weeks’ pay in compensation.

CA-00032130-002 – Complaint under the Redundancy Payment Acts

Section 7(2)a of the Redundancy Payments Acts lists the following situation as a valid ground for redundancy;

“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”.

This section clearly describes what has occurred in this instance- the Complainant’s employer ceased to carry on business, effectively making his role redundant.

In the circumstances, I find in favour of the Complainant and consequently his application succeeds. Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information.

·       Date of Commencement:      1st July 2009

·       Date of Termination:              30th July 2019

·       Gross Weekly Pay:                   €800.00

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Redundancy, Cease of Business, Notice