Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Edward  Smyth

Delta Alarms Dundalk Ltd

Representatives

Mr. John McArdle, CMF Accountants

 No Appearance

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-00036359-001

26/05/2020

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 6th April 1980. On 28th June 2013, the Complainant’s employment was terminated by the Respondent. On 26th May 2020, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he had been made redundancy but had not received a redundancy payment. A hearing in relation to this matter was convened, and finalised, on 19th November 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 WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing a preliminary point as to jurisdiction was raised by the Adjudicator.

At the outset of the hearing, the Adjudicator stated that in circumstances whereby the complaint was not issued for almost seven years, it may be determined to be out of time for the present Act.

By response, the Complainant’s representative submitted that the Complainant sought to enforce his rights at the relevant time. In support of this contention, the Complainant opened contemporaneous documentation to a government department regarding his outstanding payment. The Complainant stated that he believed that the matter was being dealt with in the interim.

In summary, the Complainant representative stated that he tried to enforce his rights at the relevant time but unfortunately did not receive a resolution to his query.    

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that they were on notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing. Having regard to the same, the matter proceeded in their absence. 

Section 24(1) of the Act provides that,

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment

( a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or

( b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or

( c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.”

Section 24(2)B provides that,

“Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.”

In the present case, the Complainant was dismissed on 28th June 2013. The present matter was referred on 26th May 2020, six years and elven months following in dismissal. In such circumstances, the Complainant is not referred in time, even if the extension set out in Section 24(2) B is applied. In such circumstances I find that the complaint is out of time and the Complainant’s appeal fails.

I find that the complaint is out of time. Consequently, the Complainant’s appeal fails.

Redundancy, statute barred