Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Renaldas  Petkevicius

Gl West Cork Motors Limited

Representatives

  No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00049175-002

13/03/2022

On 13 March 2022, the Complainant, a Lithuanian National and Mechanic submitted a claim for a lump sum payment in Redundancy.

On 14 April 2022, the Respondent, a   Motor Company, was notified of the claim at the business address, but returned post marked as “insufficient address” dated 21 April 2022.

The Complainant was requested to provide further detail, but nothing followed in return.

On 12 April 2024, both parties were invited to hearing, set at May 31, 2024. The Interpreter, requested by the Complainant was booked.

On this occasion, the Respondents notification was returned marked as “gone away “.

On 23 May 2024, I wrote to the Complainant as part of my prehearing preparations, seeking.

1 an outline of the case .

2 pay slips.

3 PRSI record linking him to the employment.

4 contracts of employment

5 records of efforts made to secure the statutory lump sum in redundancy.

I did not receive a response.

The Complainant submitted a complaint that he had not received any redundancy payment following an employment span of 14 January 2019 to 31 January 2022.

The Employer has moved from Ireland and is not answering my calls. He didn’t explain anything.

No further detail followed. No details of pay were written down.

On May 27, 2024, the Complainant sought a postponement of the hearing, which was refused by the Postponement Section as the complainant had booked his flight after he had received notification of hearing.

The Complainant was not available at hearing to ventilate his case.

The Respondent has not made an appearance in this case. I am satisfied that the notification of hearing was sent to the business address provided by the Complainant, and it was returned and marked as “gone away “.

The Respondent has not filed a defence in this case.

I have been requested to make a decision in whether the complainant can secure a statutory lump sum redundancy payment in redundancy.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on full notice of the hearing listed in his case and made a conscious decision not to attend the hearing.

He failed to address my request for preparatory documents for hearing. He failed to make an appearance at hearing.

On May 28, 2024, the WRC informed the complainant why he had not secured his requested postponement. He was also informed that the case was going ahead.

My jurisdiction in these cases arises from Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967

General right to redundancy payment.

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.

The requisite period is 104 weeks continuous employment.

I opened the hearing at 10.10 am in the presence of the Interpreter alone.

Neither party were present and neither party offered any excuse for their absence.

I am satisfied that the complainant was on full notice of the hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified at the business address shared by the Complainant.

Taking all the circumstances into account, I find that the complainant unexplained absence from the hearing to be unreasonable.

The Interpreter had travelled a long distance that morning to attend the hearing.

It would have been prudent for the complainant to alert the WRC by email of his intention not to attend the hearing.

I have found the claim to be not well founded and I cannot grant the complainant access to a redundancy lump sum payment for want of evidence of dismissal and redundancy.

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 have found the claim to be not well founded and I cannot grant the complainant access to a redundancy lump sum payment for want of evidence of dismissal and redundancy.

Nonappearance by either party at hearing