Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Quirke

Nicosia Limited trading as Starblitz

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Non-attendance

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-00051185-001

15/06/2022

The hearing took place in person.  The complainant attended the hearing, the respondent did not.  The compliant gave his evidence under affirmation.

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 13 January 1997 until his employment was terminated by way of redundancy on 7 March 2022.  The complainant submitted the letter at the hearing.

The complainant submitted that the respondent indicated that it was unable to pay his redundancy payment.  He submitted an RP77 form completed by the respondent to that effect.  The complainant also submitted an RP50 form completed by the respondent.

The complainant submitted the appropriate forms to the Department of Social Welfare who contacted the respondent indicating that they would only accept the electronic version of the forms.  The complainant submitted the Departments correspondence to that effect.

The complainant gave evidence that the respondent refused to recomplete the forms establishing his entitlement to a redundancy payment repeatedly.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

Section 6(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states that

(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,

Having regard to the provisions of the Act, and to the written and oral submissions of the complaint, I am satisfied that the complainant has established that the employment relationship came to an end by way of redundancy.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act.

The complainant gave his evidence in a succinct, cogent and credible manner and accordingly, I find that his employer has refused to comply with the procedures laid down by the Department of Social Welfare.

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

Redundancy payments Act – non-compliance by employer – right to payment established.