ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029123
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | William Kent | Hartway Trading Ltd t/a Harding Fireplaces |
Representatives | Mr Billy Kent | Mr James Harding |
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-00038882-001 | 24/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - following 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses present. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
There were no issues raised regarding confidentiality in the publication of the decision
Background:
The issue in contention was a claim for statutory redundancy by the Complainant against the named Respondent - Hartway Trading Ltd. The employment had begun on the 1st of October 1983 and ended on the 26th May 2020. The weekly wage was stated to be €475 for a 39 Hour week. |
Parallel Labour Court Appeal against Adj 29124
A very similar case (same facts and circumstances) involving a colleague of the Complainant, Mr McG ( Adj 29124 and RPA/217 ) was cited by all parties as having a major determinant influence on this case.
The Respondent indicated that he had major queries on RPA/217 and did not wish to proceed with the Complainant’s case while he sought clarification on those queries.
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent employer since the 1st October 1983. There had been a number of Trading name changes in the Employer over the years but the employees had not been impacted. The Covid shut down in early 2020 had resulted in the Complainant being laid off. He was called to a meeting on the 18th May 2020 with other colleagues, including Mr McG. He was informed that there was no longer any work in the main employer – Hartway Trading Ltd but that he could transfer to another Company – Company A on the same site and continue working. The nature of the work was different and there was no real way that the job of the Complainant was being continued in the manner he had been used to. He was entitled to Redundancy.
|
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The original employer was a piece made Fireplace company. The market for unique fireplaces had collapsed with the Building recession of the late 2018/2019 era. Following Covid, which further seriously damaged the Company, it was clear that Hartway Trading Ltd could not remain in business. The staff were offered a seamless transfer to Company A, operating on the same site and doing very similar work. There could be no suggestion of Redundancy when perfectly acceptable alternative work was on offer. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
At the Adjudication hearing it was accepted that the McG case (Adj 29124) was “ad idem” or completely similar to this case in all material facts. Adj 29124 was subject to appeal to the Labour Court resulting RPA 217 decision. The Respondent sought to have the case adjourned as he was seeking “clarification” for RPA 217. This was agreed to by both sides. A period of time was allowed for this clarification. As RPA 217 found in favour of Mr McG and the facts are almost identical, save in some minor dates, this decision has to find likewise. Accordingly Statutory redundancy is awarded to the Complainant for the period from 1st October 1983 to the 10th of July 2020 the date it was maintained the employment ended. There was some discussion of exact employment dates (mostly minor issues with start dates ) but it was agreed that the records of the Department of Social Protection /Redundancy Section could clarify this. The redundancy calculation can be based on the stated rate of pay of €475 Gross per week although again the records of the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners may need to be consulted. In summary Statutory Redundancy is awarded to the Complainant in this case. |
4: Decision:
CA: - 00038882-001
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Statutory redundancy is awarded to the Complainant based on service from 1st October 1984 to the 10th July 2020
The rate of pay was stated to be € 475 per 39-hour week
(It is important to note that the records of the Department of Social Protection may need to be consulted to verify the dates & figures stated.)
Dated: 27th September 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Redundancy, Labour Court determination in related case. |