ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00033286
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Hughes | Galway Free Range Eggs Limited |
Representatives | Bernadette Glynn, Solicitor | The respondent did not attend |
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-00044104-001 | 14/05/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/04/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a remote hearing on April 19th 2022, at which I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
Mr Hughes was represented by his solicitor, Ms Bernadette Glynn. An adjournment was granted to Galway Free Range Eggs Limited for a hearing scheduled on March 16th 2022. On April 6th, I decided not to grant a second adjournment, and on April 12th, a director, Mr Kevin Towey wrote to the WRC and apologised that no one from the company was available to attend the hearing. As the subject matter for adjudication is the non-payment of a redundancy lump sum arising from the termination of Mr Hughes’ employment more than two years ago, I have decided to proceed with the hearing of this complaint.
Before giving evidence, Mr Hughes gave a solemn affirmation to tell the truth. While the parties are named in this decision, for the remainder of this document, I will refer to Mr Hughes as “the complainant” and to Galway Free Range Eggs Limited, as “the respondent.”
Background:
The complainant worked as a van driver for the respondent’s egg sales and distribution business in Cregmore, County Galway and he joined the company on April 14th 2003. He claims that, when his employment ceased on March 20th 2020, he was not paid a redundancy lump sum. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the hearing, the complainant said that one of the directors of the company phoned him on March 20th 2020 and told him that the business was going through some difficulties and that there wasn’t enough work and that he would be let go. He said that the director was very apologetic. He received a letter of the same date informing him that he was being placed on short time working. He returned the van to the company’s premises in Cregmore. Two weeks later, the complainant said that the director asked him to go to Monaghan to collect eggs and he was paid for working for one day. He said that the director told him that he would be in touch. He got no other work with the respondent and he claims that his employment has been terminated due to redundancy. To determine their entitlement to a redundancy lump sum, a former employee is required to submit a complaint to the WRC. When he submitted his complaint on August 21st 2020, the complainant was informed by a member of staff at the WRC that it could not be adjudicated on because the respondent had ceased trading and had been removed from the Register of Companies. On April 14th 2021, the complainant’s solicitor successfully applied to the Circuit Court to have the company restored on the Register of Companies and a new complaint was submitted to the WRC on May 14th 2021. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In accordance with section 24(2A) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (“the Act”), I am satisfied that the striking off of the company from the Companies Register and the challenge of having the company reinstated, is a reasonable cause for the complainant not submitting this complaint to the WRC within 12 months of the date of the termination of his employment. As the complaint has been submitted within 104 weeks of the termination of the complainant’s employment and, as I am satisfied that the delay was for reasonable cause, I can proceed with my enquiry. Section 7 of the Act sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is: (a) [T]he 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.” From the employee’s evidence at the hearing, it is apparent that the complainant’s employer has ceased operations in the place where he was employed. As he was offered no alternative work in any other premises, the complainant’s job is redundant. As he has completed more than two years of service with this employer, 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.
In accordance with section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, I decide that this complaint is well-founded. Subject to his PRSI contribution status, the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on his service from April 14th 2003 until March 20th 2020. |
Dated: 21st April 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Redundancy lump sum |