ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042079
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Damien Leavy | Red Express Couriers Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00052911-001 | 20/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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.
The hearing was heard remotely pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Parties were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same. Parties were also advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination is permitted. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation and the respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submits that he did not receive redundancy payment. The respondent did not attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he commenced employment on 14/8/2017 and his employment ended on 26/2/22 and not 28/2/22 which had been on his complaint form. The complainant’s weekly wages was €847.03 and the complainant provided some wage slips to support same but said he did not always get wage slips. The complainant gave evidence that he was advised around the middle of December 2022 that the respondent Mr A was letting hm go at the end of February 2022 due to the medical advice of Mr A’s doctor as he had health issues and stress. The complainant secured other employment quickly and said that Mr A is still working for himself and does not appear to have any employees. The complainant said that he asked Mr A around March or April about redundancy, but Mr A said that his accountant said the complainant was not entitled to it and drove off very quickly in the van after this conversation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. The respondent was put on notice of the hearing dated 27/02/23. The respondent requested an adjournment on 11/4/23 owing to “unable to make that hearing as wil (sic) be working and its busy and can’t get cover”. The respondent was advised on 12/4/23 that his request for an adjournment was denied and was advised the hearing would go ahead. Nothing further was received by the respondent and the respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submits that he did not receive redundancy payment when the respondent let all the employees go. The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on proper notice of the hearing and failed to attend. Section 7(1) provides that: 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 F18[four years] ending on that date.
Taking into consideration all the submissions and noting that the respondent did not attend, I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:
Date of Commencement: 14/08/2017 Date of Termination: 26/02/2022 Gross Weekly Pay: €847.03
This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
Decision:
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.
Taking into consideration all the submissions and noting that the respondent did not attend, I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:
Date of Commencement: 14/08/2017 Date of Termination: 26/02/2022 Gross Weekly Pay: €847.03 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
Dated: 16th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy, respondent did not attend. |