Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  Bright

Lifetime Care Ltd

Representatives

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-00060413-001

06/12/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00060413-002

06/12/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant attended the hearing, the respondent did not.  The respondent was sent notification to the address provided in writing to the complainant but his was returned unopened.  The Companies Registration office website notes that the company is trading normally as per the date of the hearing.

The complainant submitted that she is entitled to a redundancy pay in respect of the end of her employment. 

The complainant stated that she was informed by the respondent on the day that her employment terminated that the company was ceasing trading.  The complainant stated that she was not paid a payment in respect of her redundancy.

The complainant commenced her employment with the respondent in May 2016 and was paid an average of €700 per week. Although her employment ended on 5 October 2023, she did not receive her statutory redundancy entitlements.

The complainant stated that she was not paid for two weeks of her employment – weeks ending 29 September 2023 and 5 October 2023

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

CA-00060413-001 Redundancy Payment

The Law:

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 have been 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 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.

(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.”

Conclusions and Findings:

The complainant was told by the respondent that the company was finished trading and was going into liquidation on 5 October 2023.  Her employment ceased an hour later.  However, neither she nor any other staff member was given any details regarding liquidation nor the name of any company or individual acting as liquidator.  The Companies Registration Office website indicated (as of the date of the hearing) that the respondent is trading normally.

The complainant provided three payslips that she received from the respondent, the final one dated 22 September 2023, which indicated that she had 38 insurable weeks employment during the year to date.  The complainant stated that she was in employment with the respondent on a continuous basis since May 2016.  The complainant stated that she was made redundant when the respondent decided to cease operations.

The complainant gave her evidence in a clear and concise fashion.  She also provided documentary evidence to the WRC in support of her claim.

Findings:

Having considered the complaints testimony, I find that she is a credible witness.

On the basis of the evidence presented to me, I am satisfied that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.

CA-00060413-002 Payment of Wages

The complainant stated that she did not receive any wage payments from her employer on 29 September and 5 October 2023.  Having considered the complaints testimony, including the documentation she submitted to support her contentions, I find that she is a credible witness.

I find that the respondent has not adhered to the provisions of the Act and that two weeks wages is outstanding (€1,400 gross)

CA-00060413-001 Redundancy Payments Acts

I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria:

-          Date of commencement:   May 2016

-          Date of termination: 5 October 2023

-          Average Gross weekly wage: €700

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

CA-00060413-001 Payment of Wages Act

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant has established a well-founded complaint.  I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €1336.98 (equivalent to the net amount of the wages after making any lawful deductions) which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Redundancy payment – entitlement established – appeal granted – payment of wages – two weeks shortfall established – compensation awarded