Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Raymond Cooley

Red Express Couriers Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00052435-001

27/08/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 12th May 2014. The Complainant was a full-time, permanent employee. On 28th February 2022 the Complainant’s employment was terminated as his former employer ceased trading.

On 27th August 2022, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission, herein he alleged that the termination of his employment was on the grounds of redundancy, and consequently, he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. No submission disputing this allegation was received from the Respondent.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finlaised on, 3rd March 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

In advance of the hearing, a representative for the Respondent informed an agent of the Commission that he was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing, but that he did not intend on attending the same. On foot of this information the hearing proceeded in the Respondent’s absence.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation in support of his allegation.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he was employed as a courier with the Respondent. He stated that he commenced employment on 12th May 2014 and received an average weekly payment of €580.00.

On 20th January 2022, the Managing Director of the Respondent informed the Complainant that he intended to cease trading in the immediate future and gave notice of his dismissal. The Complainant’s dismissal took effect on 28th February 2022. Following this dismissal, the Managing Director accepted that the Complainant was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, however this had not been received by the date of the hearing.

As set out above, the Respondent did not attend the hearing as scheduled. In circumstances whereby they were on notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing, the matter proceeded in their absence.

The Complainant has alleged that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The evidence in this regard was uncontested by the Respondent, either by way of opposing submission or contradictory witness evidence.

Section 7(2)a of the Redundancy Payments Acts lists the following situation as a valid ground for redundancy;

“…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”.

This section clearly describes what has occurred in this instance- the Complainant’s employer ceased to carry on business, effectively making his role redundant. Having regard to the foregoing, and the wording of the Redundancy Payments Acts, I allow the Complainant’s appeal.

I find in favour of the Complainant and allow the Complainant’s appeal.

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

Date of Commencement:              12th May 2014

Date of Termination:                     28th February 2022

Average Weekly Wage:                 €580.00

Redundancy, Ceased Trading, Non-Appearance