ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030498
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pedro Castilho | Sion Hill Restaurant Ltd |
Representatives | Not represented | Did not attend the hearing |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00040321-001 | 08/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
This complaint was submitted to the WRC on October 8th 2020 and, in accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, it was assigned to me by the Director General. Due to the closure of the WRC as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, a hearing was delayed until May 28th 2021. On that date, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant attended the hearing, representing himself. The respondent did not attend and did not send a representative.
Background:
The complainant was a waiter in a restaurant in north Dublin from February 2016 until October 2019. This complaint is about the non-payment of redundancy following the liquidation of the restaurant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
On February 8th 2016, the complainant commenced working in the respondent’s restaurant as a waiter. At the hearing, he said that he worked between 30 and 50 hours each week, and that he was paid the minimum wage. He said that all the staff were contacted by telephone by the restaurant owner on Sunday, October 12th 2019. They were informed that the restaurant was closing immediately and that there would be no work from Monday, October 13th. The complainant understood his job to have become redundant and he claims that he is entitled to a redundancy payment. Although he was put in touch with the liquidator of the company, the liquidator did not pay a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is: “(a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose 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,” As the complainant’s employer has ceased operations in the place where he was employed, his job has become redundant. As he has completed more than two years of service, he is entitled to a redundancy payment. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Subject to his PRSI contribution status, I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on his service from April 8th 2016 until October 12th 2019. |
Dated: 26th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Redundancy |