ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032029
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Deegan | Paul Byrne Car Sales Ltd |
Complaints:
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-00042513-001 | 15/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00042513-002 | 15/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This complaint concerns a claim by the Complainant that he has not been paid his statutory redundancy payment and that he did not receive his statutory notice entitlements when his employment was terminated by the Respondent by reason of redundancy. |
CA-00042513-001 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s business closed temporarily due to an onsite fire on 4 January 2020 during the Christmas period. All employees were told their jobs were safe and once the workshop space was rebuilt they could continue with their onsite roles. During the rebuild, work still continued offsite where possible and payments were still processed for employees who could continue with their roles. The Complainant submits that the Respondent contacted him by phone call on 6 June 2020 to say he would not be reopening the business. During the phone call, the Complainant asked about redundancy and was told the Respondent would get his secretary of business to 'look into it'. The Complainant submits that no further payments, salaries or work was completed after the phone call on 6 June 2020. Since then (June 2020) there has been no contact between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant submits that the redundancy payments form was posted to the Respondent's home address. The Respondent returned the form and stated on it that the reason for non payment of redundancy was 'can't pay'. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the oral hearing in relation to this complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was employed on a continuous basis by the Respondent from 6 January 1992 until 8 June 2020 when his employment was terminated by reason of redundancy following the closure of the Respondent’s business. |
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 is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payment Acts based on his continuous and reckonable service in accordance with the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 6 January 1992 - Date of termination: 8 June 2020 - Gross weekly wage: €450 |
CA-00042513-002 Complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that he received no more than 2 days notice of termination of his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the oral hearing in relation to this complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Law “Minimum period of notice 4.— (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— ……… (e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks. ” Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant had in excess of 15 years’ service with the Respondent when his employment was terminated on 8 June 2020. Therefore, the Complainant had accrued a statutory entitlement to eight weeks’ notice in accordance of the provisions of Section 4(2)(d) of the Act on the termination of his employment. I find that the Complainant was not afforded his statutory notice entitlement or payment in lieu thereof prior to the termination of his employment with the Respondent. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant is entitled to compensation in respect of eight weeks’ notice in accordance with the aforementioned provisions of the Act. |
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.
I find that the complaint is well founded and in accordance with the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €3,600 being the equivalent of 8 week’s pay as compensation for the breach of Section 4(2) of the Act. |
Dated: 9th February 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Key Words:
Redundancy – minimum notice |