ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042852
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrew Moore | Nuparc Technical Services Ltd |
Representatives | None | Not in attendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00026079-001 | 06/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant employed by the Respondent company from the 5th of November 2010 until the 4th of July 2017 when he was made redundant.
The Complainant’s pay was variable but he was paid on average €100 a week by the Respondent. The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.
Mr Tom Murray of Friel Stafford was appointed liquidator to oversee the wind up of the Respondent company. Friel Stafford, wrote to the WRC with the CRO certificate confirming the voluntary wind up of the Company on the 12th of December 2019. Friel Stafford indicated they would not engage any further with the WRC as the Respondent company was dissolved. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave oral evidence that he and his colleagues had been suddenly made redundant in the Summer of 2017. They had no prior notice that the Respondent was in difficulty and they were not expecting to be made redundant. The Complainant engaged with the Liquidator who he says indicated that they would be paid any redundancy payments owing but that they were dealing with the Department of Social Protection or Revenue to arrange this. The Complainant was asked to fill out a RP77 by the Liquidator and did so. The Complainant and his colleagues called and emailed the Liquidator regularly and on one occasion turned up to their office. The Liquidator indicated that would being paid their redundancy payment, but it would just take time. The Complainant received an RP50 in November 2018. In March of 2019 it became clear that he would receive no redundancy payment from the Respondent and submitted a complaint to the WRC under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Acts outlines the time limits that apply regarding employee claims for statutory redundancy payment/lump sum. Subsection (2A) states that Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled. The Complainant submitted this complaint some 83 weeks after his termination. He has advanced the argument that this delay was reasonable as he the liquidator was indicating he would in fact be paid. On reflection he is of the view that they deliberately delayed matters. The Complainant provided clear and credible evidence under affirmation. He was unable to produce emails because his phone had been wiped in the intervening period. On the balance of probabilities, I am of the view that the Complainant did have regular contact with the Respondent and that he was given assurances that he would get his redundancy payment and that it was just a matter of time. I am of the view that, the circumstances, this was a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting a complaint and that the complaint is within my jurisdiction. I note that the Respondent had not dissolved at the time this complaint was submitted and that I see no reason for the alleged failure by them to clarify the Complainant’s entitlements and whether they would be paid either out of company funds of the Redundancy Payments Scheme. On review of Subsection 2 of Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, I am satisfied that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. As he had more than 104 weeks service with the Respondent he was entitled to receive a redundancy payment/lump sum. |
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 this complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information. Date of Commencement: 5th of November 2010 Date of Termination: 4th of July 2017 Average Weekly Wage: €100 |
Dated: 13th February 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|