Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Claudia  O’Keeffe

Nals Ltd

Representatives

  No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant at hearing

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing

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-00050645-001

16/05/2022

On 16 May 2022, the Complainant, introduced as a Photojournalist wrote to the WRC seeking a redundancy payment.

The named respondent did not acknowledge the registered notification of claim and papers were returned.

On 15 September 2022, the Complainant pro offered another postal address for the respondent.

Registered notification of claim was served at the new address on 22 September 2022.

Both Parties were invited to an in person hearing to commence at 10 am on 13 March 2023 in Cork.

There was no appearance by either party at hearing.

I made a thorough search of the building at that time and proceeded to hearing, allowing for any eventualities at 10.20am

There was no appearance by either party at hearing.

I have waited for 5 days post hearing and I have not received an update or reason for absence from hearing from either party.

I have proceeded to concluding my decision, having taken those steps.

The Complainant submitted a complaint form that she had worked for the Respondent from 25 April 2014.

She described her complaint as not having received a redundancy payment.

The Complainant wrote that she was a lay litigant.

The text of the complaint was formatted as:

“When the Pandemic began my employer instructed us to get the PUP payment and informed us that he would be in contact. He did not get in contact and has ignored all emails and the form RP9 and RP77”.

Later, June 27, 2022, the Complainant wrote that she had submitted a RP9 form on 6 April 2022.

She outlined that she had visited the business, which was closed, and a new business had opened.

No further submissions were advanced.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and did not advance any reason or excuse for missing this key date.

There was no appearance on or behalf of the Respondent at hearing.

I did not have the benefit of a defence in the claim.

The WRC made two attempts to serve notice of claim on the Respondent. The first was returned, the second retained.

I have been requested to decide whether the complainant is entitled to a lump sum payment in redundancy?

In reaching my decision, I am satisfied that both parties were invited to a hearing to expand on this matter.

My jurisdiction in this claim lies in section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

General right to redundancy payment.

7.— (1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four yearsending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) 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, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on proper notice of the hearing in this case.

 I am also satisfied that the notification of hearing sent to the second address attributed to the Respondent and retained, failed to prompt an appearance at hearing.

I have waited 5 days to allow either party to explain matters or give a reason for their absence at hearing.

I have heard nothing further from either party.

In the absence of evidence from the complainant, I cannot identify that the complainant was dismissed from the named employment.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

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.

In the absence of both parties at hearing, I was unable to secure a response to my Inquiry in this case.

I found this nonappearance by both parties to be unhelpful and would have appreciated notice of this occurrence.

I find that the claim for a lump sum payment in redundancy is not well founded. I could not identify facts in support of the occurrence of a dismissal.

Claim for Redundancy, no appearance by or on behalf of either party at hearing