Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Miroslav  Lesko

Crozen Restaurant T/A Crozen Inn

Representatives

  Self

 No appearance

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-00039280-001

20/08/2020

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

CA-00039284-001

20/08/2020

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

CA-00039280-002

20/08/2020

This was listed and notified as an appeal of refusal to pay statutory redundancy. The Complainant attended the hearing. There was no attendance by the Respondent.  Notification was issued to the Respondent by registered post on 07.10.2020 and returned marked ‘gone away’ and received by the WRC on 13.10.2020. Further notification was issued on 22.03.21 returned to the WRC on 29.03.21 marked gone away. Further correspondence issued 15.04.21 was returned to the WRC received on 22.04.21 and finally, notification of the hearing dated 15 October 2021 was returned to the WRC on 08.11.21. As I am satisfied that every reasonable effort was made by the Workplace Relations Commission to notify the Respondent of the complaint and also the date and time of the hearing, I proceeded to hear the complaint and the decision is based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant. As explained in the Findings Section-an additional complaint-a claim for payment of statutory notice pay is included in the Decision.

The name of the employment on the payslip was Crozen Restaurant and this name is inserted in the Decision.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was employed as a chef from 06/04/2015 until 15/01/2020 on an average rate of pay of €300 gross per week. He worked some short and some long weeks by agreement. On 14/01/2020 bar staff told him the bar and restaurant were closing. He served an RP50 on the Respondent who filled in the form but said he would have to get the money from the State. As the Respondent did not provide evidence of inability to pay, the Department of Social Protection told him that he would have to obtain a decision from the WRC before he could be paid from the Insolvency Fund.

He received no pay in lieu of notice and referenced this fact on his complaint form as he understood he was entitled to two weeks pay in lieu of notice.

The name of the employment on the payslip was Crozen Restaurant and this name is inserted in the Decision.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was employed as a chef from 06/04/2015 until 15/01/2020 on an average rate of pay of €300 gross per week. He worked some short and some long weeks by agreement. On 14/01/2020 bar staff told him the bar and restaurant were closing. He served an RP50 on the Respondent who filled in the form but said he would have to get the money from the State. As the Respondent did not provide evidence of inability to pay, the Department of Social Protection told him that he would have to obtain a decision from the WRC before he could be paid from the Insolvency Fund.

He received no pay in lieu of notice and referenced this fact on his complaint form as he understood he was entitled to two weeks pay in lieu of notice.

On the basis of the available evidence the appeal against non-payment of minimum notice is upheld. 

The complaint for non-payment of minimum notice is also included in the Decision. In other circumstances agreement to include this aspect of the complaint as described on the form but not selected on the WRC drop down list, would be sought from the Respondent at the hearing or otherwise formally notified to the Respondent. However, given the absence of any engagement by the Respondent with the WRC including the inability to serve notice on him by post and his refusal or inability to pay statutory entitlements to the Complainant, I consider no useful purpose would be served in prolonging this matter. The Complainant has waited since January 2020 for payment of his entitlements and from August 2020 for a hearing of his complaint. This has all the hallmarks of a debt which will be settled by the State on which there is an obligation to ensure that the Complainant receives his full entitlements, which patently includes his entitlement to receive pay in lieu of notice.

CA- 00032980-001Redundancy Payments Act 1967-2014

I allow the appeal against the decision of the Respondent not to pay to the Complainant his statutory entitlement to redundancy pay.

The Complainants statutory entitlement to redundancy pay is calculated as follows:

Date of commencement 6/04/2015

Date of termination of employment 15/01/2020

Average Gross pay €300 per week

The forgoing subject to Miroslav Lesko having been in employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the requisite period of employment.

CA-00032980-002 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

The complaint that the Complainant is entitled to two weeks pay in lieu of notice is well founded. The Complainant is to receive €600 gross as payment in lieu of notice.

Redundancy appeal/Minimum Notice