ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043732
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Robert Brennan | JJ McGovern Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | Emma Coffey, Emma Coffey Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
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-00054671-001 | 24/01/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that he was employed with the respondent from 13 January 2014 until 23 January 2023. He outlined that he was placed on temporary layoff on 9 December 2022 but was informed in 2023 that there was no further work available within the company and applied for Redundancy. The complainant stated that the respondent director told him that there were not able to pay redundancy to him and that they completed the RP9 form to that effect. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The witness for the respondent stated that he agreed with the facts outlined by the complainant. It was noted that the complainant was offered employment with a sister company based in a different location but declined the offer. The respondent submitted that it was not disputing the complainant’s right to a redundancy payment but outlined that it had not made any provision to pay for the redundancy. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant worked for the respondent for about ten years. He was laid off due to a lack of available work. He sought redundancy and the respondent does not dispute his right to redundancy. The respondent did not make any provision to pay him the appropriate redundancy payment. The complainant appealed this decision to the WRC. Having considered the submissions and evidence of both parties, I am satisfied that the complainant has established that he was employed by the respondent, and according to the payslips submitted he was paying PRSI. I find that the complainant has established a right to be paid redundancy in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I find that in circumstances where the respondent indicates that it does not have the funds to pay the redundancy, the complainant is entitled to apply to the Social Insurance Fund for payment of his redundancy. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Having regard to the written and oral submissions in relation to this complaint, my decision is to allow the complainants appeal. |
Dated: 7th June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment – entitlement established – appeal allowed. |