Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Damien  Byrne

Swiftsupplies Unlimited

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-00053237-001

12/10/2022

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent company from 5th of August 2016 until 3rd of June 2022 when it ceased trading.

The Complainant was not paid any redundancy payment.

The Respondent’s Director Mark Lynch has written to the WRC indicating that the Respondent was not in a position to pay the Complainant a redundancy payment. In his email Mr Lynch recommended that he applies to the state for payment.

A hearing was held on 6th of June 2023 in Lansdowne House. The Respondent did not attend and had applied for a postponement some three weeks prior. The application for postponement was refused. The Complainant attended and gave evidence under oath.

The hearing was scheduled to start at 10 am in Lansdowne House. I allowed for an additional 30 minutes in case the Respondent might attend late but they did not.

The Complainant attended and provided detailed oral and written evidence as to his entitlement to a redundancy payment from the Respondent.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Complainant submits that he did not receive redundancy payment when the Respondent ceased trading.  The Respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that they were notified in advance of the place, time and date.

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Acts provides for an entitlement to a redundancy payment in certain circumstance.

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.

Section 7 subsection 2 goes on to list that circumstances where an employee can be dismissed by reason of redundancy.

(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….

It is clear that the Complainant’s dismissal is encompassed by Section 7. He has provided payslips which demonstrate he was employed in insurable employment. He has provided a copy of his contract outlining the date he began working for the Respondent. Both he and the Respondent have confirmed that he was terminated because the Respondent ceased trading.  

The Complainant raised his entitlement with the Respondent on a number of occasions. The Respondent appears to have thought that the social insurance fund was liable instead of them because they were in financial difficulty. This was incorrect. I note that in evidence the Complainant outlined that he attempted to explain to the Respondent that the process for the state to pay his redundancy needed to be initiated by the Respondent and not the Complainant. This was essentially ignored. 

I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment calculated with reference to the following information:

Date Employment Commenced: 5th of August 2016

Date Employment Ended: 3rd of June 2022

Gross Weekly Pay: €575.37