Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  White

Claire Noble

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

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-00052565-001

04/09/2022

The Complainant attended the hearing into this matter and gave evidence under affirmation.

The Respondent was notified of the hearing but did not attend. I waited until 30 minutes after the beginning of the hearing time. During the course of the hearing the Complainant made an application to list Claire Noble as  the Respndent employer rather than the Beaumont Bakery. He indicated that the Beaumont Bakery was the trading name of his employer and is listed  on the form in error. He stressed that his employer often didn’t provide documentation such as payslips which would help clarify the situation.

I adjouned the hearing and wrote to Ms Noble notifying her of the application and given her an opportunity to seek a resumed hearing within two weeks. She did not do so so I proceeded to issue this decision.  

The Complainant joined the Respondent bakery on first January 2000.

The company name changed a number of times but his service was unaffected. The Respondent generally  didn’t provide payslips. These were only provided on request.

The business had been struggling for a number of years and in July 2022 he and other staff were given eight weeks notice. The Complainant provided a copy of the notice letter in the hearing and a RP50 notice of redundancy completed and signed by his employer confirming his service and entitlement to redundancy.

He was made redundant due to the company ceasing trading on the 3rd of September 2022. 

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

On review of ADJ-00041531 and ADJ-00042325 I note that the Respondent has attended other WRC hearings and has agreed that their business closed and that their staff were made redundant. 

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

7(1) 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 (and are in this Act referred to) 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 to 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.

(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.

With reference to the above legislation and the Complainant’s evidence and service I conclude that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payments as provided for in the act.

Regarding the naming of the Respondent. I can allow the amendment of thes proceedings as provided for in County Louth VEC -v- Equality Tribunal [2009] IEHC 370.  I note Ms Noble was on notice of this complaint as she was listed as the Respondent contact person. The issue arises because the Complainant appears to have confused the trading name of his employer with their actual name. However in the hearing the Complainant provided clear documentation showing that Ms Noble was his employer. I also note that this decision issues within the cognisiable period for the referral of claims under this act so the practical implications of my not facilitating the Complainant’s request would likely just be significant delay to both parties as the complainant progresses a fresh complaint against the correct Respondent. As such, having regard to all the circumstances, I am satisfied that I should permit the amendment of this complaint to identify Ms Noble as the Respondent.

I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment calculated with reference to the following facts:

He commenced employment with the Respondent on the 1st of January 2000.

He had continuous service until being made redundant on the 3rd of September 2022.

His gross weekly wage was €600.