ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053022
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Kristof Tarasevic | Phelan Woodcraft |
Representatives | Self-represented | 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-00064728-001 | 11/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. | CA-00064728-002 | 11/07/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. | CA-00064728-003 | 11/07/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant seeks a statutory redundancy payment. He confirmed that he only seeks the redundancy payment. He did not intend to make the Minister for Social Protection a Respondent. The following were withdrawn at hearing:
CA-00064728-002
CA-00064728-003
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Labourer for the Respondent from 8 May 2021 to 5 July 2024 on a gross weekly wage of €646. The Respondent made him redundant on 5 July 2024.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that due to severe financial problems, he had to let 5 staff go.
Redundancy is not disputed.
Findings and Conclusions:
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…
I find that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 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 complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:
Date of Commencement: 8 May 2021
Date of Termination: 5 July 2024
Gross Weekly Pay: €646.00
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
Dated: 18th December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Redundancy |