ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032172
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John O Sullivan | Michael Wilson t/a Mick and Jimmy’s Restaurant |
Representatives | None | none |
Complaint:
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-00042635-001 | 23/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The Respondent did not attend the hearing and I am reasonably satisfied that every effort was made to contact him.
Background:
The Complainant began working as a sous chef in the Respondent’s restaurant on 11 June 2015. His employment was terminated on 15 March 2020. His gross weekly salary was €673; net €564.96 for a 40-hour week. The Complainant submits that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy but did not receive his redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that the respondent’s business shut on 15 March 2020 and staff were told to fill out redundancy forms and to send them to the Respondent. The Complainant duly did as was required, sent in his form but heard nothing from the Respondent. He had some contact with the Respondent who kept assuring him that everything was in hand and that he would receive his redundancy sum, as promised. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not make an appearance at the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The general right to redundancy payment of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, as amended, (the Act) provides as follows at section 7:(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) 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 for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), 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, or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained.
I am satisfied, based on the evidence of the Complainant, that the Respondent ceased to carry on the business at the place where the Complainant was employed.
Having considered all the uncontested, sworn evidence in this complaint I find that the Respondent ceased to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed, as provided for in section 7(2)(a) of the Act. I conclude that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment. |
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.
I find that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a statutory redundancy sum based on the following criteria: Date of commencement of employment: 11 June 2015 Date of termination of employment: 15 March 2020 Gross weekly Pay: €673.00 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant periods. |
Dated: July 19th 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012. |