Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kyle  O Shaughnessy

Veracity Maintaining Partnerships Limited

Representatives

  In person

 Did not attend

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-00058154-001

07/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00058154-002

07/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00058154-003

07/08/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00058154-004

07/08/2023

This complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 7th August 2023 and relates to redundancy entitlements. There were further issues mentioned in the complaint form narrative relating to outstanding monies in respect of a back weeks’ pay, outstanding expenses and outstanding annual leave entitlements. Each of these complaints have been assigned a complaint application number and are addressed in this decision.

The complainant stated that he has not worked for the respondent since 14th July 2023. In respect of payment for the weeks worked prior to the termination of his employment, the complainant stated that he was paid for the weeks of 7th July 2023 and 14th July 2023 on 20th July 2023 due to cash flow issues. The complainant stated that he received numerous calls from clients of his employer in the weeks leading up to the termination of his employment as there were issues getting in contact with the employer. The complainant stated that he was also unable to make any contact with the employer in respect of his continued employment or to have his redundancy entitlements confirmed to him.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

The complainant gave an honest account of the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment with the respondent in July 2023. It is unfortunate that the respondent did not attend the adjudication to put forward a response to the complaint.

The Applicable Law

Sections 7(1) and 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 provides 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,

From the complainant’s verbal submission and in the absence of any input from the respondent in relation to the complaint, I am satisfied that the complainant’s employment ended by reason of redundancy in accordance with Section 7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

The complaint in respect of the complainant’s redundancy entitlements is well founded. The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment as follows:

Date of commencement of employment: 30th August 2019

Date of cessation of employment: 14h July 2023

Gross rate of pay: €750.00 per week.

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is based on the complainant having been in insurable employment within the meaning of the Social Welfare Acts for the period in question.

CA-00058154-002 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint relates to the non-payment of a back weeks’ wages that the complainant said he did not receive.

CA-00058154-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint relates to the non-payment of expenses that the complainant says he is owed.

CA-00058154-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint relates to outstanding annual leave entitlements that the complainant says were due to him when his employment ended.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

 CA-00058154-002 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

I note that the complainant stated that he was owed a back weeks’ wages amounting to €650.00. However, the complainant did not provide any documents to show that he was required to work a back week. On that basis, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00058154-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

This complaint relates to unpaid expenses, which amount to approximately €2,000.00. While the complainant stated in his complaint form that he had not been paid monies that were owed to him, I note that the Interpretation section of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, excludes the payment of expenses from the scope of the Act. On that basis, I find that the complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00058154-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint relates to 14 days of annual leave which the complainant contends was outstanding when the employment ended in July 2023. The complainant quantified the outstanding entitlement at approximately €1,500.00.

While the complainant asserts that he had an outstanding entitlement to annual leave, he did not provide any details in relation to this complaint or documentation that would assist in substantiating the complaint. Based on the lack of information relating to the complaint, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00058154-002 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Having considered the matter, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00058154-003 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Having considered the matter, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00058154-004 – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Having considered the matter I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Redundancy, payment of wages, outstanding annual leave entitlements