Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mara  Garcia Codonio

MBC Products Ireland Ltd

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Non-attendance

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-00056105-001

17/04/2023

The complainant attended the hearing and gave her evidence under oath. 

The respondent did not attend the hearing.  Notification was sent out to the respondent at the most recent address as per correspondence received by the complainant and I am satisfied that they were on notice.  Accordingly, the hearing proceeded.

The complainant submitted that she was entitled to a redundancy payment which was never paid over to her.  She submitted a copy of the calculation of statutory redundancy as per the Department’s calculator, it amounted to €2493.31. She also submitted the notification of redundancy letter from her former employer together with a copy of her bank statements reflecting the payments lodged by her former employer.

The complainant gave evidence that she worked with the respondent from Sept 2019 up until 25 November 2023.  She stated that she had received no redundancy payment from her former employer and that she had received correspondence from the employer with a recent address.  She submitted documentation in support of this contention.  The complainant also gave evidence regarding the payment that she had received from the employer and those that she had not.  This was supported by documentary evidence.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

CA-00056105-001

The complainant provided evidence of her redundancy, evidence of her calculated entitlement and evidence in support of her contention that the statutory redundancy payment was never made to her.

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(c) 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 any monies to the complainant 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 a redundancy.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria:

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. 

Redundancy Payments Act – statutory redundancy unpaid – appeal allowed