Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tomasz  Palak

The Bread and Malt Company Ltd. T/A Arun Bakery

Complainant

Respondent

Representatives

North Dublin Citizens Information Service

 Did not attend.

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-00053140-001

06/10/2022

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

CA-00053140-002

06/10/2022

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

CA-00053140-003

06/10/2022

This is a complaint that the respondent failed to pay the complainant his statutory redundancy payment when the company ceased to trade in October 2021.

The complainant had been employed as a delivery driver with the respondent bakery since 3/6/2013.

His gross weekly salary was €438.06.

He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 6/10/2022.

CA-00053140-001. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

The CIS representative clarified that the respondent’s correct name is The Bread and Malt Company Ltd.

The complainant worked with the respondent from 3/6/13 as a delivery driver delivering finished bakery products to retailers in the Dublin area.

He was laid off due to Covid from 13/3/2020 – 20/7/2020 and, again, from 2/11/2020 until 14/6/ 2021 when he resumed working.

In October 2021 – he cannot be certain of the date- he arrived at the respondent’s premises to find it locked. The respondent failed to provide him with any advance notice of this development. Two weeks later the respondent telephoned him to state that the bakery was closing with immediate effect due to financial difficulties and his ill health. The respondent did not pay the complainant his statutory redundancy at this time.

The complainant made repeated efforts to secure the payments. The respondent usually replied stating that he was winding down the business and once that was completed, he would make the payments to the complainant.

on 16/9/22 the complainant submitted an PP 77 form to the respondent. The CIS telephoned the respondent on the 3/10/2022. He confirmed that he had received the RP 77 form. The respondent advised the CIS and the complainant on that call that he was unable to pay the redundancy but was unsure of the steps which he should take. The CIS sent him a step-by-step guide as to the process which the respondent should follow to enable payment to be made to the complainant.

 The CIS contacted the Redundancy Payments Section of the Department of Social Protection who confirmed that the respondent had furnished no notice to the Department of inability to pay.

The CIS made a final effort to resolve the matter in January 2023 but got no response to their email.

Relevant Law

The complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment by virtue of section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967,as amended.

 CA-00053140-002. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

This is listed as a complaint that the complainant did not receive his correct redundancy payments and is a duplicate of CA-00053140-001 and addressed in that specific complaint.

 CA-00053140-003. Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

The complainant did not receive proof of his employer’s inability to pay redundancy.

This is addressed CA-00053140-001 and is therefore a duplicate.

The respondent thought notified of the hearing neither attended nor was represented. The respondent failed to provide any reason as to why he could not attend.

 Relevant law and entitlement to statutory redundancy payments.

 The grounds which must exist to satisfy the definition of genuine redundancy are set out in section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and amended by the Redundancy Payments Act 1971 and 2003 and are

”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) N/A”

The uncontested evidence is that the respondent ceased to trade in October 2021 and that he was in contemplation of ceasing the business in which he employed the complainant.

Obligations on the Employer.

Section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended provides that;

“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 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 – 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 years ending on that date.”

Reckonable service for purposes of redundancy is set out in Schedule 3 of the Acts. Section 8 of Schedule 3 sets out absences which are not reckonable. Section 8(d) provides as follows:

“(d) absence by reason of lay-off by the employer”.

Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that this is a redundancy within the ambit of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.The complainant had the requisite service when the business closed down.  Based on the uncontested information presented to me at the hearing, I find that he was in insurable employment.

I find on the basis of the uncontested evidence that he is entitled to redundancy payments for 7.49 years.

I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details:

Lay off periods:13/3/2020-20/7/2020 and 2/11/2020- 14/6/21.

Date of commencement of employment: 3/6/2013

Date of termination of employment:   14/10/2021    

Gross weekly pay:                                     €438.06

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

I decide that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details:

Date of commencement of employment: 3/6/2013

Date of termination of employment:   14/10/2021    

( Lay off periods:                                        13/3/2020-20/7/2020 and 2/11/2020- 14/6/21).

Gross weekly pay:                                     €438.06

Entitlement to redundancy