ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026238
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brendan Nugent | Mullingar Glass & Mirror Co Ltd |
Representatives | none | none |
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-00032789-001 | 08/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016],following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence relevant to the dispute. This matter was heard 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. Neither the Complainant or the Respondent were represented. At the outset of the hearing I drew the parties attention to the Supreme Court decision in Zalewski V Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24 and I note the WRC had done likewise prior to the adjudication hearing. I advised the parties that their names would not be anonymised in my published decision. Further, in the course of the adjudication hearing and by agreement with the parties I invoked my authority pursuant to Section 39.17 of the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016] to administer the following Affirmation:
“I [X] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give to the WRC shall be the truth, the whole truth and, nothing but the truth”
The Complainant and the Respondent gave evidence and were afforded the opportunity to examine and cross examine each other’s evidence as part of the remote hearing. All oral evidence and supporting documentation received by me has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 7/1/2010 to 18/1/2019 and his gross weekly pay was €1187.00. The Complaint Form was received by the WRC on the 8th December, 2019. The Complainant is seeking redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016]. An adjudication hearing was held on the 14th December 2020 which was adjourned by consent of the parties to establish if resolution could be achieved. As resolution was not achieved the case was rescheduled for hearing on the 4th May 2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant outlined his work with the Respondent. He stated that although he went to work as usual on the 18th January 2019, the work stopped and the business closed that day. The Complainant stated that he was advised by the Respondent to sign on. He stated that prior to the closure the business was not going well, that he had not been paid wages for a number of weeks and that he couldn’t continue without pay. The Complainant stated that he sent the Form RP77 to the Respondent which the Respondent had signed. Post hearing the Complainant furnished additional documentation in relation to various dealings with the DEASP (Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection) and copy of the Form RP50 which was signed by the Complainant and the Respondent on the 6th June 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that he did not dispute the Complainant’s entitlement to redundancy and that he supported his application in that regard. In relation to the closure of the business, the Respondent stated the business stopped trading on the 11th January 2019 but that there was a build up of work which he was committed to finishing. In that regard, the Respondent stated that final jobs were completed on the 18th January 2019. The Respondent disputed that he had not been transparent in relation to the closure of the business. He stated that he had found himself in a situation he had not experienced before, dealing with an insolvent business, that he has since got professional assistance to help sort matters out and that he regretted matters were still on-going. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Sections 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016] state: “(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy…..shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known…..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……
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 in the place where the employee was so employed, or……”. In light of the foregoing and the evidence of the parties, I find that the Complainant’s employment was terminated on the 18th January 2019 as a result of the closure of the Respondent’s business. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent for reason of redundancy. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016] requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00032789-001
I decide this complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following: · Date of Commencement: 7th January 2010 · Date of Termination: 18th January 2019 · Gross Weekly Pay: €1187.00 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 9th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment |