ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042850
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mariusz Kucharski | Model Four Hours Cleaners Ltd |
Representatives | North Leinster Citizens Information Service CLG |
|
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-00053342-001 | 19/10/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint 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:
The Complainant began working for the Respondent’s dry cleaning business in Stillorgan as a presser in May 2008. In March 2020 he was placed on unpaid lay-off due to covid-19. In May 2022 he requested a redundancy payment from the Respondent.
Following some limited engagement between his representative at Citizen’s Information and the Respondent the Complainant submitted this complaint on 19th of October 2022. A hearing was held on the 3rd of May 2023.
The Complainant attended and gave evidence under affirmation.
On review of the file I am satisfied that a notification of hearing went to the Respondent’s address as listed with the CRO. I delayed half an hour on the morning of the hearing and the Respondent did not attend. I opened the hearing and heard the Complainant’s case.
I waited a week before drafting this decision to allow for any submissions from the Respondent explaining their failure to attend or to request the case be relisted. None was received. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s representative made comprehensive written and oral submissions to the hearing. The Complainant provided oral evidence. On the 20th of March 2020 the Complainant was approached my Mr Alan Silverman who was in charge of the Respondent’s operation. He explained that everyone was being placed on lay off due to covid. The Complainant was asked to register for covid payments from the department of social protection. He was told that when the situation became clearer he could come back. There was some ongoing communication with the Respondent, it seemed as if both parties anticipated the Complainant coming back to work. The Complainant contacted with Mr Silverman in January 2022 and asked about severance pay. He was told that the Respondent was going into bankruptcy and suggest the PRSI scheme for redundancy. Mr Silverman then suggested coming back on a different contract and suggested alternative employment at a lower hours. When the Complainant indicated that this wouldn’t be appropriate for him communication ceased. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This matter concerns a claim for redundancy following a period of lay-off. Section 12.1 of the Redundancy Payment Acts states that: An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off or kept on short-time unless— (a) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for four or more consecutive weeks or, within a period of thirteen weeks, for a series of six or more weeks of which not more than three were consecutive, and (b) after the expiry of the relevant period of lay-off or short-time mentioned in paragraph (a) and not later than four weeks after the cessation of the lay-off or short-time, he gives to his employer notice (in this Part referred to as a notice of intention to claim) in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time. The Complainant, with the assistance of Citizen’s Information, submitted a RP9 form outlining his intentioned to claim redundancy on the 17th of May 2022. This was following extensive engagement with the Respondent. At this point the Complainant had been on lay off for over two years. The Respondent did not respond with any offer to re-engage the Complainant. In the circumstances I am satisfied the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment as provided for in the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Complainant provided credible written and oral evidence as to the dates of his employment, lay-off and his normal rate of pay. |
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.
I find that this complaint is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information. Date of Commencement: 7th of May 2008 Date Lay-off Commenced: 20th of March 2020 Date of Termination: 17th of May 2022 Weekly Wage: €615 |
Dated: 22nd May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|