Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Michael  Joyce

 Frank McHale trading as Stacks Bar

Representatives

  Stan McDonnell

 Did not attend

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-00051143-001

10/06/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00051143-002

10/06/2022

 The complainant was employed in the respondent’s bar from 1st January 2007 until 6th March 2020. The complainant was paid €600 gross per week. The matter first came on for hearing on 16th January 2023. The complainant was unwell and could not attend the adjudication hearing although his representative attended on his behalf. The matter was adjourned to allow for the complainant’s attendance at a rescheduled hearing which took place in Castlebar Courthouse on 15th June 2023.

The complainant is seeking his redundancy entitlements in circumstances where the bar in which he worked has not opened since March 2020. The complainant confirmed at the adjudication hearing on 15th June 2023 that after 6th March 2020 he worked a couple of days in the weeks that followed but was unsure of the exact dates.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

The complaint is brought under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

Time limits

Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 provides as follows:

24.Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeksbeginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment—

(a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or

(b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or

(c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.

(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a weekly payment unless he has become entitled to a lump sum.

(2A) Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2A), where an employee establishes to the satisfaction of the Director General—

(a) that failure to make a claim for a lump sum before the end of the period of 104 weeks mentioned in that subsection was caused by his ignorance of the identity of his employer or employers or by his ignorance of a change of employer involving his dismissal and engagement under a contract with another employer, and

(b) that such ignorance arose out of or was contributed to by a breach of a statutory duty to give the employee either notice of his proposed dismissal or a redundancy certificate,

the period of 104 weeks shall commence from such date as the Director General at his discretion considers reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

From the verbal submissions of the complainant and his representative it is unclear as to when the employment ended although it appears that the complainant’s employment ended in March 2020. The complainant was unsure of the exact date but confirmed that apart from a day or two casual employment he did not work after March 2020.

 On the basis of the employment ending in March 2020, the complaint lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10th June 2022 is beyond the outer limit of 104 weeks permissible by the legislation. On that basis I find that the complaint is out of time.

Having considered the matter, I find that the within complaints (CA-00051143-001 and CA-00051143-002) are out of time and are therefore statue barred.

Redundancy entitlements, complaint out of time.