Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Felix  Buzau

Courtney Interior Limited

Representatives

Marius Marosan

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-00047491-001

03/12/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00047491-002

03/12/2021

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the WRC.  The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. 

On the conclusion of the hearing, the WRC received confirmation from the liquidator appointed to the respondent confirming that the complainant was an employee.

CA-00047491-001

The complainant submits that he is entitled to a redundancy payment

CA-00047491-002

The complainant submitted that he was unfairly dismissed without any notice.  He submitted that the respondent dismissed him and continued trading but under a different name. 

The complainant submitted copies of three payslips to confirm that he was an employee of the respondent.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.  The WRC received post-hearing correspondence from a named liquidator indicating that the complainant was an employee of the respondent.

CA-00047491-001

Having regard to the oral evidence of the complainant, to the submission of a number of payslips and to the written confirmation from the liquidator appointed to the respondent company, I am satisfied that the complainant is an employee and is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment in accordance with the legislation.   Accordingly, I allow the complainant’s appeal.

CA-00047491-002

Section 6(4) of the Unfair Dismissals Act , 1977 states as follows:

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(a) the capability, competence or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do,

(b) the conduct of the employee,

(c) the redundancy of the employee, and

(d) the employee being unable to work or continue to work in the position which he held without contravention (by him or by his employer) of a duty or restriction imposed by or under any statute or instrument made under statute.

The complainant indicated that the respondent continued to trade but was not able to provide specifics in this regard.  He provided a number of payslips to show his hourly wage and to attest to his employment status.

Having regard to the oral evidence of the complainant and to the post-hearing correspondence of the liquidator appointed to this respondent firm, I am satisfied that under Section 6(4)(c) of the Act, the termination of the employment came about due to the redundancy of the employee.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00047491-001

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented to me in relation to this matter, my decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

CA-00047491-002

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Redundancy Payments – employee - entitled to a payment – Unfair Dismissal – not unfairly dismissed