ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048037
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daniel Meredith | David McGoldrick t/a Maxburns |
Representatives | Self-represented. | The respondent Director. |
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-00059040-001 | 26/09/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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. I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The hearing proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses.
The respondent Director attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation.
The complainant represented himself and gave evidence under affirmation.
.
.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, seeking a redundancy payment in accordance with section 7 of the Acts. The complainant was employed as a Manager in the respondent’s phone and computer repair shop from 2/12/2019 until the respondent made him redundant on 17/7/2023. His gross weekly salary was €400. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 26/9/2023.
|
Preliminary issue:
Correct title of the respondent. The respondent agreed to the name change to reflect the company’s correct legal tile. I agreed to the name change. This is reflected in the decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a manager in the respondent’s mobile phone and computer repair shop repair shop on 2/12/2019. The respondent advised him that he was looking for an alternative premises and so would have to place him on temporary layoff on 17/7/2023 for a period of 3 – 4 weeks . The respondent then notified him that he was making him redundant on 14/8/2023. He requested redundancy payments form the respondent on multiple occasions. In September 2023, the respondent told him he was working on making the payments to him, but the complainant heard nothing further from him. He asks that his complaint be upheld. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Evidence of the respondent given under affirmation. The respondent accepts the complaint’s service record and salary details. The respondent had four employees up to the time of the complainant’s redundancy. The company is still operating but he now works alone in the company. The respondent accepts that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment. H was unable to make the payment to the complainant. He was waiting advice form Revenue.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
Relevant Law. Entitlement to redundancy Payments arises where a genuine redundancy has arisen. 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, or (d) N/A. (e) N/A. “ Based on the law and the uncontested evidence, I find that the complainant’s employment was terminated as a result of redundancy. Based on the uncontested evidence, I find that the respondent failed to pay the complainant redundancy monies in accordance with section 7 of the Act of 1967-2014. 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: 2/12/2019. Date of termination of employment: 17/7/2023. Gross weekly pay: €400. |
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: 2/12/2019. Date of termination of employment: 17/7/2023. Gross weekly pay: €400. |
Dated: 21st March 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments. |