Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Pascal Mooney

Raymark Engineering Limited

Representatives

Brian Nolan, Connect Trade Union

Not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00040935-001

12/11/2020

The complainant seeks the statutory minimum notice period following the ending of his employment on the 27th March 2020.

The complainant outlined that the business closed overnight on the 27th March 2020. He and his colleagues were informed that the respondent company would enter liquidation and that a liquidator would pay their entitlements arising from the ending of their employment. It was submitted that the company did not enter liquidation and that this was an attempt to avoid the company’s debts. The complainant outlined that this amounted to reasonable cause in respect of the timing of the complaint, as well as did the circumstances of the pandemic.

The complainant’s employment commenced on the 22nd October 2001. His weekly rate of pay was €879.84. He submitted that he is owed €7,038.72. The complainant submitted that his loss was not being paid the notice pay.

The respondent did not dispute the complainant’s claim.

This is a complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act. The complainant seeks payment of his statutory notice pay. He commenced employment on the 22nd October 2001 and his employment ended on the 27th March 2020.

The complainant outlined that the respondent dismissed him without notice and he was not paid notice pay as required by the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act. The respondent did not dispute this and nor did it dispute that the complainant was employed for some 19 years.

It follows from the above findings that the complainant is entitled to 8 weeks of statutory notice pay. His weekly wage was €879.84. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to redress of €7,038.72.

I find that the complainant has established reasonable cause in respect of when the complaint was lodged. First, the complaint was lodged relatively shortly after the period of six months from the date of his dismissal ended. Applying the leading authority of Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338, the complainant must show that there are reasons that explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. I note that the delay in this case is far shorter than the delay in Cementation Skanska v Carroll, where the claimant established reasonable cause. I also note that the circumstances between this case and Cementation Skanska v Carroll are directly comparable. The complainant in this case delayed submitting the complaint because of statements made to him by the respondent, just as Mr Carroll had delayed because of statements made by his employer. Applying the language of Cementation Skanska v Carroll, it was ‘perfectly reasonable’ for the complainant to wait for the liquidation process to start and take its course.

The respondent did not, in fact, enter liquidation and nor has it been liquidated. It is a subsisting legal entity.

I, therefore, award the complainant redress of €7,038.72.

CA-00040935-001

I decide that there was a contravention of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act and I direct that the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €7,038.72.

Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act / statutory notice pay / reasonable cause