ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049100
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Colm Haugh | Haugh Family Butchers Ltd |
Representatives | The Complainant represented himself. | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
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-00060305-001 | 29/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/03/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gráinne Quinn
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, 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.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an eligible employee who is found to be redundant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for every year of service. The Acts provide for a payment of two weeks gross pay for each year of service. A further bonus week is added to this. An eligible employee is one with 104 weeks of continuous employment with an employer and whose position has ceased to exist. The calculation of Gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. Gross pay is the current normal weekly pay including average regular overtime and benefits-in-kind and before tax and PRSI deductions.
Responsibility to pay Statutory Redundancy rests with the Employer. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection that it is unable to pay Statutory Redundancy to an eligible applicant, the Department will make payments directly to that employee and may seek to recover as against the Employer independently.
In the event that an Employer refuses to engage with an employee, it is open to the employee to bring an appropriate complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission.
The Employee must have made a claim for a redundancy payment by notice and in writing before the expiration of 52 weeks form the date of the cessation of the employment per section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended). The time limit may be extended to 104 weeks where the employee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Adjudication Officer that the failure to bring the claim in the earlier time period was due to reasonable cause (24(2A)).
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice.
I additionally informed the attendee that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effect on the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that, as a matter of expediency, I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
The Complainant was the sole attendee. He gave evidence on affirmation.
On review of correspondence between the Workplace Relations Commission and the parties, I am satisfied that the Respondent was provided with an opportunity to be heard and has not presented any reply to the complaint. I note that both parties were sent letters dated the 7th of February 2024 notifying them of the arrangements for the hearing on the 21st of March 2024.
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent from the 7th of January 2016 as a butcher predominantly at the Loughrea shop. On the 22nd of February 2023 the Respondent closed the shop at Loughrea. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation. The Complainant relied on the submission outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. The Complainant commenced work with the Respondent on the 7th of January 2016. At the time that his employment ceased the Complainant was earning €320.00 gross per week. He confirmed that the Respondent had had a number of businesses. The shop he worked at predominantly was the last one to close. There had been no communication between the parties since October and November 2023 when they last spoke. The Complainant and owner of the Respondent were brothers. The Complainant was informed there was no more work on the 22nd of February 2023. He left the store. Thereafter the Complainant filled out the requisite form and the Respondent submitted it. However, this form was returned in July 2023 when the Complainant was informed it needed to be done online. The Complainant contacted the owner of the Respondent company who confirmed he had not filled this out online despite being asked to do so, nor would he do so. At that point the Complainant had received advice from the Citizens Information who advised him that the only avenue left for him was to go to the WRC. He informed the owner of the Respondent of this and the response was fine. The Complainant had spoken to the Department of Social Protection first before contacting the owner of the Respondent. He asked him to send him the form online. The Complainant has received no redundancy certificate and received barely a day’s notice. The premises were leased. The Complainant was satisfied that the details of the Respondent were correct and double checked his payslip. The Complainant alleges that he was made Redundant and that his Employer never paid him Redundancy. The Complainant is seeking his redundancy entitlements under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, to the effect that the Complainant was made redundant and did not receive a statutory redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that they were on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act sets out that “(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—
(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and
(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date. (2) 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” The Complainant was clearly made redundant when his employment was terminated due to his employer closing the business on the 22nd of February 2023. As the Complainant was employed from the 7th of January 2016 to the 22nd of February 2023, he is entitled to be paid redundancy pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014. As the Respondent did not attend the hearing none of the Complainant’s evidence was uncontested. |
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.
I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement: 7th of January 2016 Date of Termination: 22nd of February 2023 Gross Weekly Pay: €320.00 |
Dated: 05th April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gráinne Quinn
Key Words:
Redundancy; |