Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Carol  Mckinney

Wiseloads International Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

 Campbell International Human Resource Consultants

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00052660-001

07/09/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00052660-002

07/09/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 21st July 2018. The Complainant was a permanent employee, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €480.77. On 20th November 2020, the Complainant’s employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy.

On 7th September 2022, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein she alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay her statutory redundancy payment and that they had made an illegal deduction from her wages.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalized on 2nd June 2023. This matter was heard in parallel with a similar complaint involving the Complainant and an associate company. At the outset of the hearing it was confirmed that both employments occurred simultaneously and both complaint could be maintained.

At the outset of the hearing, the representative for the Respondent raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction. In circumstances whereby this matter may determinative of the entire proceedings, it will be considered in advance of the substantive matter. 

The Respondent submitted that in circumstances whereby the complaint were referred in excess of one year after the Complainant’s dismissal they were statute barred for the purposes of the present Act.

In answer to a question posed the Adjudicator, the representative for the Respondent accepted that the Complainant had been dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.

At the outset, the Complainant accepted that he complaint under the Payment of Wages Act related to an alleged deduction that took place over one year prior to the referral of the complaint. In such circumstances she accepted that this particular complaint is statute barred for the purposes of the impleaded Act.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Complainant submitted that in the event that she could demonstrate “reasonable cause” the cognisable period for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Act could be extended to 24 months.

Regarding the same, the Complainant submitted that the exact nature of her dismissal was uncertain for a period of time following her dismissal. She submitted that for an extensive period of time, she was lead to believe that the Respondent intended to re-engage her on one of her dual employments. The Complainant further submitted she had just completed a period of maternity leave prior to her dismissal and that she had childcare duties during the relevant period during the initial period of referral. Finally, the Complainant stated that she unwell during the period, with a corroborating doctor’s report being issued to the Adjudicator in the course of the hearing.

Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, the Complainant submitted that she had demonstrated reasonable cause and that the cognisable period for the purposes of the Act should be extended.

Regarding the instant case, the factual matrix in respect of the substantive matter is not in dispute. It is common case that the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy but did not receive a statutory redundancy payment, in contravention of the Act. The Complainant further accepted that her complaint under the Payment of Wages Act is statute barred, even with the application of time extension provided for in the Workplace Relations Act. Having regard to the foregoing, the only matter to be determined is whether the Complainant established reasonable cause so as to permit the lengthier extension of time provided for in the Redundancy Payments Act.

In this regard, Section 24(2A) of the Act (as amended) provides 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.”

In the matter of Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338 the Labour Court held that,

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

Regarding the instant matter, the Complainant grounded her application for an extension of time on three separate points. Firstly she stated that a degree of confusion existed regarding her employment status at the relevant time, she further submitted that during this time she was a new mother, with all the attendant responsibilities attached to the same. Finally the Complainant submitted that she was unwell for much of the relevant period. Medical evidence was submitted to corroborate the final point. Having regard to the accumulation of the forgoing points it is apparent that the Complainant has both explained the reason for the delay and afford a reasonable excuse for the delay. In such circumstances I find that the complaint is in time and the substantive matter falls to be considered.

In circumstances where the substantive matter has been conceded by the Respondent, I allow the Complainant’s appeal and her application is successful.

CA-00052660-001 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act

I allow the Complainant’s appeal and find that her application is well-founded.

In the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information.

Date of Commencement:              21st August 2017

Date of Termination:                     20th November 2020

Average Weekly Wage:                 €480.77

CA-00052660-002 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

I find that this complaint is not well-founded.  

Redundancy, Reasonable Cause, Extension