Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Raymond  Donagher

G&G Ross Mobile Stone Crushing

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

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-00049687-001

13/04/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00049688-001 Withdrawn

13/04/2022

This matter came before the WRC dated 13/04/2022 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.  The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 09/06/2003.  His employment ended on 08/04/2022.  The Complainant was employed as a service engineer.  He was paid €854.25 gross weekly.  The Respondent is involved in the business of mobile stone crushing in the construction sector.   This complaint for statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated, and he has neither received payment of a statutory redundancy lump sum nor confirmation of a return to his former role.  It would appear the Respondent no longer operates his business in the Republic of Ireland.  The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy payment in circumstances where his employment with the Respondent ended on 08/04/2022 and he has processed his claim by of Workplace Relations claim form dated 13/04/2022. 

The Complainant gave evidence he was “let go” by the Respondent week ending 08/04/2022.  That was the end of his employment with the Respondent.   The Complainant stated it did not come as a great surprise as the Respondent had lost a lucrative contract with Roadstone which seemed to have been the mainstay of the business in the Republic of Ireland.  When questioned the Complainant stated there were 4 or 5 others made redundant as well as him.  The Complainant relied mainly on his WRC complaint form in terms of evidence provided and the detail provided therein was inadequate for the purposes of making all relevant inquiries into this complaint.   Accordingly, upon my request, there were a number of supplemental documentary evidence items submitted by the Complainant to the WRC post-hearing all of which have been forwarded to the Respondent. 

On 12/04/2022 the Respondent emailed the Complainant thanking him for his years of service and dedication to his work.  The Respondent also forwarded an email from his accountant advising that having looked at the figures for the disposal of the business in the Republic of Ireland, he could not see there would be any funds left to discharge the Respondent’s liabilities for statutory redundancies.  The Respondent’s accountant suggested employees take the matter up with the relevant authorities in the Republic and he attached a link containing details of where employees of the Respondent should lodge a complaint with the relevant Irish authorities who would take the matter from there.   The Complainant duly completed the WRC complaint form when he accessed the link. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  I note the Respondent has not engaged with the WRC or submitted any written submissions or documentation.  In the circumstances, no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

CA-00049687-001

The Relevant Law:

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must (1) have at least 2 years’ continuous service; (2) be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts; (3) be over the age of 16; (4) have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and (5) not have received a lump sum payment.  Periods of lay-off are excluded from reckonable service. 

However, while lay-off is non-reckonable service, the Covid 19 related lay-off payment scheme is a once off lump sum payment for employees who have been made redundant since 13/03/2020 or are made redundant before 31/01/2025 and have lost the opportunity to build reckonable service due to temporary lay-offs caused by Covid 19 restrictions from 13/03/2020 to 31/01/2022.  It is noted the Complainant was in receipt of Pandemic Unemployment Payment during the period from 01/01/2020 to 01/03/2021. 

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

(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,

Having heard the evidence and the fact that the Complainant had been dismissed “let go” as the business has ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed and that his work had ceased, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that he was on notice of the hearing.  I can find no documentary evidence among the post-hearing supplemental documentary evidence provided, nor was any evidence adduced during the hearing, that the RP50 form had been prepared by the parties or submitted to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) for a redundancy payment.  I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of his redundancy at the date of hearing. 

In the circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded.  The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

Commencement date: 09/06/2003

End of employment: 08/04/2022

Period of Covid 19 related lay-off:  from 01/01/2020 – 01/03/2021

Gross weekly pay: €854.25

The Complainant was made aware of the fact any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952 – 1966.  The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant Department. 

I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his employer to pay a redundancy.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 based on the following criteria:

Commencement date: 09/06/2003

End of employment: 08/04/2022

Period of Covid 19 related lay-off:  from 01/01/2020 – 01/03/2021

Gross weekly pay: €854.25

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.    

Claim for Statutory Redundancy; Respondent did not attend;