Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gedeminas  Urbasius

San Siro Limited T/A Browne’s Steakhouse

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

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-00061764-001

26/02/2024

The Complainant claims entitlement to a statutory lump sum payment arising from the termination of his employment with the Respondent.  This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 26/02/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 26/04/2024 and a further hearing took place on 08/08/2024.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a kitchen porter at all material times.  The Respondent is a restaurant.  The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 20/06/2005.  His employment ended on 24/12/2023.  The Complainant was paid €576.92 gross per week for which he submits he worked between 47 and 60 hours. 

This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated and he has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to his former role.  The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where his employment ended on 24/12/2023 and he has processed her claim to the WRC on 26/02/2024. 

The first hearing of this matter was adjourned on 26/04/2024 because I was not satisfied the Respondent was properly on notice of the hearing. 

Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day of the second hearing of this matter, namely 08/08/2024 there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.  I am satisfied the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing by correspondence from the WRC to the registered address of the Respondent as set out on the CRO website from which the letter of notification was returned.    

I note a trading status as “normal” on the CRO website as of the date of issue of issue of this decision. 

CA-00061764-001

The Complainant submits he was employed by the Respondent as a kitchen porter since 20/06/2005.  The Respondent restaurant closed on 24/12/2023 and has not reopened since.  The Complainant submits he has heard nothing from the Respondent.  The Complainant contacted the Respondent by registered post on 26/04/2024 by correspondence which set out as follows:

“Dear Greg

With this letter I am informing you that I am applying for the redundancy payment as to date I have not been in contact by you in regards my work position and overall situation since 24/12/2023.  I fully understand that this may be a difficult situation for you as well, however I have no other option as have no information whatsoever and believe redundancy payment is the right decision in these circumstances.”  Regards etc. 

The Complainant raised various other allegations in relation to his employment with the Respondent which are entirely outside of the scope of the Act under which this specific complaint is raised and indeed outside of my jurisdiction under any other piece of legislation and are not taken into account in my adjudication of the Complainant’s claim pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967. 

It was clarified to the Complainant at hearing that the single matter properly before the WRC for adjudication is his claim pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967. 

CA-00061764-001

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  I note the Respondent has not engaged with the WRC or filed any written submissions or documentation.  In the circumstances no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

In circumstances where I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly served with notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication hearing and having waited some time to accommodate a late arrival and where I formally opened and closed the adjudication hearing on the 08/08/2024, I will proceed to set out hereunder my findings and conclusions.

CA-00061764-001

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing and the uncontested oral evidence adduced by the Complainant at hearing on oath. 

The Relevant Law:

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. 

Periods of lay-off are excluded from reckonable service.  

However, while lay-off is non-reckonable service, the Covid 19 related lay-off payment scheme is a once off lump sum payment for employees who have been made redundant since 13/03/2020 or are made redundant before 31/01/2025 and have lost the opportunity to build reckonable service due to temporary lay-offs caused by Covid 19 restrictions from 13/03/2020 to 31/01/2022. 

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 byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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 and carefully considered the uncontested evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 7(2)(a) set out above.  The business has ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed, and his work has ceased.  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 his redundancy at the date of hearing. 

In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded.  The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

Commencement date:  20/06/2005

End of employment:  24/12/2023

Gross weekly pay:  €576.92

Period of Covid 19 related lay-off:  from 13/03/2020 – 22/07/2021

The Complainant was made aware of the fact than any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966.  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. 

CA-00061764-001

I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his 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:

Commencement date:  20/06/2005

End of employment:  24/12/2023

Gross weekly pay:  €576.92

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

No show Respondent; redundancy;