ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051226
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Donal Leahy | Good Friday Agreement Ltd t/a Nana’s Bar. |
Representatives | Self-Represented |
|
Complaints:
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-00062757-001 | 12/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00062757-002 WITHDRAWN | 12/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00062757-003 WITHDRAWN | 12/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 Respondent did not attend the hearing though I am reasonably satisfied that he had full notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a bar assistant with the Respondent company from 1 January 2020 to 30 August 2023. His gross pay was €499.64 for a 39-hour week. The Complainant submits he received no redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payment Act 1967 when the business closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. He received one week’s notice in August 2023 of closure of the business, with the finish-up date of 30 August 2023. To his knowledge, the principal in the Respondent company relocated to the UK. Despite the Complainant’s efforts to contact the Respondent regarding his Redundancy by email, including imploring him to use the employer’s online facility at the Department of Social Protection, no reply was received. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00062757-001: Redundancy Payment: The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 (“the Act”) which states as follows: 7(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, Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find that he was made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a) of the Act. I allow the Complainants appeal and I award him statutory redundancy on the following basis. Section 4(1) of the 1967 Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.” |
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.
CA-00062757-001: I allow the Complainant’s appeal and , subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, he is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis; Date of Commencement: 1 January 2020 Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: 30 August 2023 Gross Weekly Wage: €499.64 |
Dated: 13th August 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment Acts 1967- 2012. |