ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047908
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | John Williams | T. Daly and Brendan Swords T/A Brusson. |
Representatives | Self-represented | 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-00055654-001 | 15/03/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with 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.
The changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 were notified to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under affirmation. The complainant’s wife accompanied him.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, seeking a redundancy payment in accordance with section 7 of the Acts. The complainant has been employed as a shop assistant with the respondent’s general grocery store for what he described as roughly 10 years. The owner died in October 2021, but the shop continued to trade until 22/8/23 when the respondent notified him of redundancy, effective 22//8/23. The complainant worked 30 hours a week for which he was paid €360 gross approximately. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 15/3/23. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Preliminary Matter. The complainant requested that the respondent’s name be corrected to reflect its correct title which is T. Daly and Brendan Swords T/A Brusson. The respondent was not in attendance. I agreed to the name change and that is reflected in the decision. Substantive complaint. The complainant worked with the respondent for what he thinks was a period of 10 years as a shop assistant in the respondent’s grocery store. One of the co- owners died in October 2021, but the shop continued to trade until 22/8/23 when the respondent notified him of the immediate closure of the store and of his dismissal. No notice of the impending redundancy was supplied to him. That store, his former place of work, is now a derelict building. He asked the respondent co-owner, Mr Brendan Swords, for redundancy payment but while he stated to the complainant that he would probably have to pay him, he never did make any payment to the complainant. The respondent did not provide him with any payslips.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Relevant Law. Entitlement to redundancy Payments arises where a genuine redundancy has arisen. Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides that 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) N/A. (e) N/A. “ Based on the law and the uncontested evidence, I find that the complainant’s employment was terminated as a result of redundancy. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the respondent failed to pay the complainant redundancy monies in accordance with section 7 of the Act of 1967-2014. Unfortunately for the complainant, he was ill prepared to meet his personal obligation to supply the details necessary to secure a redundancy payment. He was unsure when he commenced employment, but thought it was about ten years previously. He was not certain of his exact salary and the sum provided -€360 gross a week -was his best estimate. He had no salary slips available to the hearing. I advised the complainant that he could source the requisite information- length of employment and salary- via the Employment Detail Summary and the former P60s etc., obtainable from Revenue. I advised the complainant that these details were essential to support his claim for a redundancy payment. I gave the complainant ample time to furnish me with this documentary evidence necessary to his claim. The complainant chose not to furnish these details. I must find that the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim for an exact redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014. He has failed to meet the requirements of the Act for a redundancy payment. I have to find that his complaint is not well founded. |
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 decide that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 3rd September 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Redundancy. Incomplete information. |