Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Leah  McInerney

Pearl Street Enterprises Ltd /Mmp Living

Representatives

  Self-represented

 nonattendance

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-00058026-001

01/08/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant attended the hearing and provided her evidence.  The respondent did not attend the hearing but confirmed in advance that they would not be in a position to attend.  The respondent confirmed in writing that they were insolvent and that they were not in a position to pay the complainant the balance of her redundancy lump sum.  Accordingly, the hearing proceeded.

The complainant submitted that she was entitled to a redundancy payment only part of which was paid over to her.  She submitted details of the calculation of her statutory redundancy as per the Department’s calculator, it amounted to €6804. She also submitted the notification of redundancy letter from her former employer together with a note from the respondent indicating that she had only been paid €5000 by her former employer by way of a redundancy payment.

The complainant gave evidence that she worked with the respondent from 1 April 2018 up until 31 May 2023.  She stated that she had only received a partial redundancy payment from her former employer and that she had received correspondence from the employer indicating that they were not in a position to pay the outstanding balance.  She submitted documentation in support of this contention.  She noted that she was in insurable employment.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter but notified the WRC that they would not be in attendance as they were insolvent.

The complainant provided evidence of her redundancy, evidence of her calculated entitlement and evidence in support of her contention that the lump sum paid to her did not equate to the statutory redundancy payment.

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)    have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)    be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)    be over the age of 16;

(4)    have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)    not have received a lump sum payment. 

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) 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, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained…

Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied the complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 2(a) above.  I am satisfied the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  I am satisfied that the respondent has not paid all of the monies to which the complainant is entitled in respect of her redundancy as at the date of hearing. The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department. 

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the failure of her employer to pay her the full statutory redundancy lump sum entitlement.  The complaint is well-founded, and the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967

Redundancy Payments Act – statutory redundancy not paid in full – appeal allowed