Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  O'Donoghue

Ultrachem Systems Ltd

Representatives

Tracy Campbell

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-00049062-001

04/03/2022

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

CA-00049062-002

04/03/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00049062-003

04/03/2022

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent on a part time basis. Her employment commenced on the 24th of  August 1997.

In December 2020 she was placed on unpaid lay off.  She was made redundant a year later.

The Complainant was not paid a redundancy payment and submitted complaints under the Redundancy payments act on the 4th of March 2022. CA-00049062-001 concerned the Respondent’s failure to pay a redundancy payment. CA-00049062-002 concerned an alleged failure of the Respondent to provide evidence of their inability to pay redundancy, this was not pursued at hearing. CA-00049062-003 concerned an alleged failure under the 1977 act to provide the Minister with a statement of prescribed information, this was also not pursued at hearing.

An online hearing was held on the 17th February 2023. Both the Complainant and Respondent’s MD   Brendan Wheatley attended.

Mr Wheatley had trouble maintaining a connection. He agreed to some key aspects of the Complainant’s case before the hearing had to be abandoned due to him losing his connection.

I sought to engage with the parties in writing to clarify whether the key dates, rate of pay and entitlement to redundancy were agreed.

Both parties sought to bring new information to my attention in writing after the hearing on the 17th of February.

In particular the Complainant sought to correct a typo in her salary and to include an additional cash in hand payment that the Respondent had been making alongside payroll. This communication was copied to the Respondent by the WRC.

I decided that a resumed hearing was required. This occurred on the 5th of September 2023.

The Complainant attended again and gave evidence. The Respondent failed to attend the resumed hearing. I am satisfied that he was on notice of the hearing.

After the first hearing the Complainant submitted incorrect salary figures of €105.22 per week.

She actually earned €150.22 per week not €105.22.

She also received €30 per week cash in hand. She did not want to disclose this at the time of the first hearing as there was no evidence of this payment. However, since the hearing on the first day Mr Wheatley had texted her about this issue and she provided copies of this exchange to the WRC.

The Respondent attended on the first day and confirmed that the Complainant worked for him and had been made redundant. He indicated that he needed to clarify when exactly she was placed on unpaid lay off by reference to her payroll taxes.

He committed to revert to the WRC with this information but failed to do so.

It is common case that the Complainant was made redundant and has the requisite service to be entitled to a lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Act.

Schedule 3 of the Act provides that a lump sum is based on normal weekly renumeration.

The Complainant provided a written statement ahead of the resumed hearing which were copied to the Respondent. In this statement she outlined that he normal weekly renumeration was €150.22 plus €30 cash in hand.

The Complainant explained that the cash in hand element of her renumeration was proposed by the Respondent and it was not something she had a say in. The cash in hand element didn’t make a difference to her as she was paid well below the normal tax thresholds.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Complainant’s normal weekly renumeration was €180.33 per week.

CA-00049062-002

I find that the above complaint is not well founded.

CA-00049062-003

I find that the above complaint is not well founded.

CA-00049062-001

I find that the above complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a redundancy lump sum calculated on the basis of the following facts:

The Complainant commenced employment on the 1st of August 1997.

The Complainant was placed on unpaid layoff on the 20th of December 2020.

The Complainant was made redundant on the 17th of December 2021.

The Complainant’s normal weekly renumeration was €180.33 per week.