ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046764
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Roberta Puglisi | Cupan Tae Teoranta (Voluntary Liquidation) |
Representatives |
| Healy Martin & Co Appointed Liquidators |
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-00057400-001 | 28/06/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/2023
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 in advance of the hearing 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, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. Ms Robert Puglisi, the complainant and her witness Ms Laura O’Sullivan gave evidence under affirmation and Mr Diarmuid Martin as Liquidator gave evidence under affirmation for the respondent.
Background:
The complainant has not received redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that she commenced employment on 10/11/2017 and her employment ceased on 10/10/2022. Her gross weekly was €540. She has not received redundancy payment and a liquidator has been appointed. She requested that the name of the respondent be amended.
In her evidence she expressed her unhappiness that it has taken so long and it would appear that the Department of Social Protection has not assisted the liquidator in dealing with her payment and has not resolved IT issues.
Ms Laura O’Sullivan gave evidence that she is also awaiting redundancy payment and has been assisting the complainant in her dealings with the Liquidator. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Martin is appointed liquidator for the respondent and confirmed that the name of the respondent should be changed and there was no objection to same.
He outlined that he has not been able to get resolution from the department of social protection regarding electronic glitches in the system and that he has been told that the only way this can be resolved is for a manual application and that a manual application can only be made with a decision from the WRC. Mr Martin apologised for the delay and he said that he fully appreciated the frustration that the complainant has experienced in receiving her redundancy entitlements. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note requests for an amendment to the name of the respondent without objection and have, therefore, amended the name and for completeness I note that parties are not prejudiced by same.
The respondent went into voluntary liquidation. Mr Martin as appointed liquidator appears to be trying to resolve the claim for redundancy payment but has run into what appears to be IT difficulties using the Department of Social Protection on-line system and it would appear that the only way this can be resolved is through a decision issued from the WRC. It is unfortunate and indeed extremely unusual that the only way, what appears to be, an IT issue can be resolved is through a decision issued by the Workplace Relations Commission. It would be expected that the relevant department resolve such IT matters quickly.
I note that it is not in dispute that the respondent went into voluntary liquidation and I note that the liquidator has confirmed that redundancy payment is owing.
Taking into consideration all the submissions and evidence, 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: 10/11/2017 Date of Termination: 10/10/2022 Gross Weekly Pay: €540
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 evidence, 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: 10/11/2017 Date of Termination: 10/10/2022 Gross Weekly Pay: €540
This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts.
|
Dated: 26th October 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy payment, liquidation |