ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050068
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James Carroll | Roadbridge Limited (in Liquidation), c/o Grant Thornton, 13 to 18 City Quay, Dublin 2. |
Representatives |
| Steven Higgins Liquidator (in absentia) |
Complaint:
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-00061165-001 | 23/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
Pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967 (as amended) it is directed that the manner of hearing prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply to any question, dispute, complaint or appeal referred to the Director General under the Redundancy Payments Acts of 1967 – 2014.
I have accordingly been directed by the Director General of the Adjudication services, to hear the within complaint and I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an eligible employee who is found to be redundant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for every year of service (per Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967). The Acts provide for a payment of two weeks gross pay for each year of service. A further bonus week is added to this. An eligible employee is one with 104 weeks of continuous employment with an employer and whose position has ceased to exist. The calculation of Gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. Gross pay is the current normal weekly pay including average regular overtime and benefits-in-kind and before tax and PRSI deductions. A Redundancy payment is generally tax free.
A complainant must be able to show a minimum two years (104 weeks) of service in the employment.
Responsibility to pay Statutory Redundancy rests with the Employer (or Liquidator as the case may be and where there are assets). Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection that it is unable to pay Statutory Redundancy to an eligible applicant, the Department will make payments directly to that employee and may seek to recover as against the Employer independently. Such claims must be submitted on form RP50 which may be signed by both employer and employee (to be accompanied with a Statement of Affairs).
In the event that an Employer refuses to engage with an employee in this way, it is open to the employee to bring an appropriate complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission as set out in Section 38(15) of the 1967 Act.
The Employee must have made a claim for a redundancy payment by notice and in writing before the expiration of 52 weeks form the date of the cessation of the employment per section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended). The time limit may be extended to 104 weeks where the employee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Adjudication Officer that the failure to bring the claim in the earlier time period was due to reasonable cause (24(2A)).
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way. In response to the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021 ]IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there might be any issue with oral evidence then best practise is to require parties declare a solemn affirmation prior to giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 23rd of January 2024.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. At the outset, the Complainant was happy to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant’s wife was with him, and I could see her on the screen alongside her husband. The Complainant relied on the submission already outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I sought further information from the Complainant regarding his employment relationship with the named Respondent. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case including the letter from the Receiver dated the 14th April 2022 together with some documentation with Revenue Employment Details. The Complainant alleges that he was made Redundant and that he is consequently entitled to his Statutory Redundancy. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. It was for him to make his case. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent (in the person of the Liquidator appointed by the High Court to wind up the affairs of the Respondent company) was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 27th of March 2024 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Respondent in correspondence with the WRC. I have additionally been notified that the Liquidator was happy for this matter to proceed in his absence.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. At the outset, the Complainant was happy to make an Affirmation to tell the truth and he provided me with oral evidence. The Complainant is seeking Statutory Redundancy in circumstances where his employment with the Respondent company came to an involuntary end by reason of the financial difficulties of the Employer. The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent company as far back as 1998. The name of the Employer has changed since its first iteration, but I understand the service has been unbroken.In the circumstances, the Complainant has worked directly for this employer for well over 20 years. Unfortunately, and unexpectedly, the Respondent company went into Receivership and thence into Liquidation. A Liquidator was appointed on the 21st of November 2022. Prior to this date the Company had been in Receivership. The Complainant described a very chaotic and pressurised state of chassis. From the Complainant’s point of view there seemed to have been no HR machinery keeping the Employees informed of what was happening. It appears that up to 600 Employees were impacted by the collapse of this company. The Complainant was not provided with any independent advice concerning his options and was being moved in the direction of becoming an Employee of another associated Company on some sort of Transfer of Undertaking basis. However, none of the usual consultation period or other hallmarks of a correct and true Transfer were observed. In addition, the job that it was proposed that the Complainant would work was to be significantly different to the one he had enjoyed with the Respondent company for the preceding years. In particular, an extra two-hour journey per day made this proposed alternative employment impossible. This did not amount to a preservation of rights and conditions which is the hallmark of a true Transfer. I find as a matter of fact that the Complainant’s position with the Respondent company was made Redundant. The fact of Redundancy was made known to the Complainant by letter on the 14th of April 2022 from the then Receiver. This communication noted the termination date as being the 28th of April 2022. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: The employment started: March the 9th 1998 The employment ended: April 28th 2022 Gross weekly wage : €1,346.00 The Complainant was made aware of the fact that any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952 to 1966. A ceiling of €600.00 will also apply. I accept that the Complainant’s job was made redundant, and I accept that the Complainant was entitled to be paid redundancy pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014. The Employee’s claim for a redundancy payment was made after 52 weeks form the date of the cessation of the employment. The time limit has been extended to 104 weeks as the employee has demonstrated that the failure to bring the claim in the earlier time period was due to reasonable cause. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00061165-001 - I find that his employment terminated on the 28th of April 2022 by reason of redundancy. I find therefore that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: The employment started: March the 9th 1998 The employment ended: April 28th 2022 Gross weekly wage : €1,346.00 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 21st June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|