Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Stephen  Walsh

Shannon Coiled Springs Limited

Representatives

 Sellors Solicitors

 Dundon Callanan Solicitors

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-00042819-001

03/03/2021

The complainant worked for a company owned by his father from 1st January 2000 before emigrating to Canada in 2016.  While there, he alleges that he continued to be employed by the company investigating business opportunities.  In 2020 his position was terminated and he is claiming a redundancy payment.

The complainant, Mr Stephen Walsh,  worked for his father in his business, Shannon Coiled Springs Ltd,  for in excess of 20 years.  He moved to Canada in 2016, where, at the request of his father, he continued to work for the company primarily in seeking out new business opportunities.  He was in regular communication with his father in this regard.  During this period considerable bitterness arose between family members.  He was asked by letter to return to his duties in Ireland from a person purportedly acting on behalf of the company, who he did not know and with whom he had never spoken.  He was subsequently dismissed from the company and is seeking a redundancy payment.

Under new management, the respondent noted that the complainant had been receiving a weekly payment from the respondent company when the last time he had actually worked for the company was a number of years earlier before he emigrated to Canada.  The complainant was written to by letter dated 25th June at his Canada address, by email and by post, seeking clarity.  He was advised that the respondent was taking it that, given he was not available for work for the respondent, and, in the absence of confirmation that he would be available, it would be the intention of the respondent to terminate his position with appropriate notice.  The complainant was asked to revert back within 10 days but failed to respond.  A second letter was sent on 13th July 2020 advising the complainant that, in the absence of having heard from him, he was being given notice of termination of his position on the expiry of eight weeks from that date.  No communication was received from the complainant.

If the complainant had presented himself for work his position would have been available to him.  He did not do so and was not available for work and therefore his position was terminated.

This is an appeal against the failure of the employer to pay a redundancy payment in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act. The complainant is seeking to be given a redundancy payment as his role was abolished by the respondent.  The respondent argues that when the new Managing Director was appointed he was unaware of what role the complainant was carrying out in Canada on behalf of the respondent company.  Given the fact that the complainant is the son of the former owner of the company and, in his own evidence, the complainant stated that he reported directly to his father, it is understandable that the new Managing Director may not have been aware of the arrangement and sought clarity on this situation. He did this by letter dated 25th June 2020 which the complainant acknowledges he received. It is noteworthy that the letter required the complainant to confirm his availability to work.  Given that the Managing Director was not familiar with the role, the approach taken was in my view reasonable.  Of particular note is that the complainant made no attempt to contact the respondent following this letter or to explain the role he purports to have carried out on behalf of the company.  The respondent followed up this letter some weeks later noting that the required confirmation had not been given and giving the complainant 8 weeks’ notice.  In effect the respondent treated the complainant as having abandoned such role as he may have had in Canada. This was a reasonable conclusion particularly as there was no evidence of activity by the complainant on behalf of the company for some time.

The initial letter from the Managing Director on 25th June together with the second letter of 13th July giving 8 weeks’ notice before implementing the conclusion that the complainant had abandoned his job was adequate time for the complainant to have contacted the company to clarify the situation.  In my view it was reasonable for the respondent to have reached the conclusion that the complainant had abandoned his role and therefore the issue of a redundancy payment did not arise.  I therefore disallow the appeal.

I do not find that the complainant was made redundant and therefore disallow the appeal

Redundancy.  Abandonment of post.