Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Earley

Roadbridge Ltd (in liquidation)

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

 Self

 No Attendance

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-00052227-001

12/08/2022

This case is concerned with an appeal by the Complainant of a decision advised to him by the Liquidator that ‘Revenue’ stated that he was not eligible for statutory redundancy pay following the demise of his former employer. Statutory notice and holiday payments were made to the Complainant.

The Complainant was employed by Roadbridge Ltd in the UK and in Ireland as a senior estimator. His rate of pay was €1945 gross per week. Grant Thornton are the Liquidators and they informed him that Revenue had informed them that he did not have the require ‘stamps’ in Ireland to qualify for stator redundancy and he was now appealing the decision to the WRC. He contends that he had four years continuous service with the employer.

Complainants Evidence

The Complainant commenced employment with Roadbridge Ltd in 2018. He was assigned to the Uk from 13 August 2018. He was based there paying tax and welfare contributions in the UK until he returned to Ireland in March 2020 when the Covid situation began to develop. From March 2020 he worked out of Ireland at home and then in Limerick until he was laid off and made redundant with effect from 29  April 2022. After March 2020 he sought to have his tax deductions made in Ireland simply for tax reasons and this did happen on 20 May 2020.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent-in this case the liquidator Grant Thornton.

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1967

REVISED

Updated to 19 April 2022

Employment wholly or partly abroad.

25.—(1) An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment if on the date of dismissal he is outside the State, unless under his contract of employment he ordinarily worked in the State.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), an employee who under his contract of employment ordinarily works outside the State shall not be entitled to redundancy payment unless, immediately before he commenced to work outside the State, the employee was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993 or would have been insurable for all such benefits but for the fact that the employment concerned was an excepted employment by virtue of paragraph 2, 4 or 5 of Part II of the First Schedule to that Act and the employee was in the employment of the employer concerned and unless—

(a)   he was in the State in accordance with the instructions of his employer on the date of dismissal, or

(b)   he had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity by his employer of being in the State on that date.

(2A) An employee who under a contract of employment has worked outside the State and was working in the State for at least two years immediately prior to the date of termination of the employment concerned shall be entitled to redundancy payment in respect of all his employment with the employer concerned.

(3) In computing, for the purposes of this Act, for what period of service a person was in continuous employment, any period of service in the employment of the employer concerned while the employee was outside the State shall be deemed to have been service in the employment of that employer within the State.

(4) Where an employee who has worked for his employer outside the State becomes entitled to redundancy payment under this Act, the employer in making any lump sum payment due to the employee under section 19 shall be entitled to deduct from that payment any redundancy payment to which that employee may have been entitled under a statutory scheme relating to redundancy in the State in which he was working.

I understand this to be an appeal of the decision of the liquidator to refuse to pay statutory redundancy to the Complainant based on the position of Revenue. It was Revenue who the Complainant referenced as being advised to ring which he duly did to be advised that he is not entitled to a redundancy payment under the Act of 1967. I am not aware of any decision by a Deciding Officer in the Department of Social Protection who are the responsible government department in these matters.

The Complainant in this case was ordinarily resident in the State at the time of his redundancy. I am satisfied that he was working in the State for two years prior to the cessation of his employment i.e. 20 March 2020 until 29 April 2022. I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with Section 25 subsection (3), the totality of the Complainants service with the Respondent employer is to be used to calculate his entitlement to statutory redundancy. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the Complainant is due his payment entirely from this State having received no equivalent payment in this, the State where he was normally residing and working at the time when his employment was terminated on grounds of redundancy. The appeal is allowed.

CA-00052227-001 Redundancy Payments Act 1967

The appeal by Paul Earley against the decision not to pay him statutory redundancy related to his employment with Roadbridge Ireland Ltd is allowed by application of Section 25 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

Date of commencement 13.08.2018

Date of termination 29.04.2022

Weekly maximum wage for the purposes of calculation €600

Computation of employment in UK/Ireland for Redundancy