ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053738
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vasile Eremia | Grat-Ryan Painters & Decorators Limited |
Representatives | Krystian Boino of Boino Solicitors |
|
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-00065643-001 | 27/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
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 parties were also afforded the opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given by oath or affirmation.
Background:
The respondent says he was made redundant after seven year’s employment with the respondent but received no redundancy payment. The respondent did not attend the hearing but I am satisfied they were on notice of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits he worked for the respondent since 10 September 2015. The complainant’s employment ended on 27 January 2023 when he was dismissed due to redundancy. He was in communication with the respondent but his redundancy payment was not processed. When the respondent said they had made no progress with processing the redundancy payment the complainant submitted this complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and made no written submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint is made under the Redundancy Payments Act and the complainant alleges he was made redundant on 28 April 2023 and he made this referral to the WRC on 27 August 2024; more than one year later. 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,“ Based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, I find that the complainant’s employment was terminated as a result of redundancy. Section 24 of the Redundancy Payment Acts provides for a time limit on claims for a redundancy payment as follows: “(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment . . . (b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer. (2A) Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled”. In this case the referral to the WRC was made more than 52 weeks after he was made redundant. At the hearing the complainant gave evidence that he had kept in contact with the respondent seeking the redundancy payment. He believed the respondent was processing the claim for redundancy payment. When the respondent told him that they were not making progress with the redundancy payment on 12 August 2024 he sought legal advice and referred this complainant within 2 weeks. In these circumstances I conclude that there was “reasonable cause” for the delay and I find I do have jurisdiction to decide the claim under the Redundancy Payment Act 1967. I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details and subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period: Date of commencement of employment: 10/09/2015. Date of termination of employment: 27/01/2023. Gross weekly pay: €740.39. |
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 find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details and subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period: Date of commencement of employment: 10/09/2015 Date of termination of employment: 27/01/2023 Gross weekly pay: €740.39 |
Dated: 06/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Redundancy – reasonable cause for delay |