ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033471
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Richard Fontes | H&H Taverns Limited |
Representatives | Self- Represented | No attendance |
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-00044301-001 | 24/05/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st February 2018. Throughout his employment, the Complainant was a full time, permanent employee. The Complainant received a weekly payment of €654.00 for 40 hours of work. On 16th June 2020 the Complainant’s employment was terminated. On 25th May 2021 the Complainant lodged a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts with the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and that his employer failed to the statutory entitlement. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened and finalised on 16th August 2021. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as the head chef for the Respondent. The Respondent premises closed as a result of the restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Complainant believed himself to be temporarily out of work. On 16th June 2020, the Complainant was informed that the business was to close down permanently. The Complainant issued the Respondent with a form RP50, seeking payment of his statutory redundancy payment, however no response was received. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing or offer any form of defence to the complaint. By correspondence dated 12th August 2021, the Respondent advised that they could not attend the hearing due to pre-existing work commitments. This correspondence also confirmed that that the business had permanently ceased operations. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7(2)a of the Redundancy Payments Acts lists the following situation as a valid ground for redundancy; “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”. This section clearly describes what has occurred in this instance- the Complainant’s employer ceased to carry on business, effectively making his role redundant. Having regard to the foregoing, and the wording of the Redundancy Payments Acts, I allow the Complainant’s appeal. |
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.
CA-00044301-001 – Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts I find in favour of the Complainant and allow the Complainant’s appeal. In the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information. Date of Commencement: 1st February 2018 Date of Termination: 16th June 2020 Average Weekly Wage: €650.00 |
Dated: 27th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Redundancy, Covid-19 |