Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ms Patricia  Higgins

Gladtem Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. 

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-00059698-001

31/10/2023

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

CA-00059698-002  DUPLICATE CLAIM

31/10/2023

CA-00059698-001

This matter came before the WRC dated 31/10/2023 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. 

The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 25/04/2024. 

The Complainant at all material times was employed by the Respondent as an Accounts Assistant.  The Respondent at all material times is a company engaged in the business of fitting of doors and windows. 

The Complainant commenced her employment in the Respondent company on 31/07/2014.  Her employment ended on 21/02/2023.  The Complainant worked 16 hours per week from 2014 until 2020.  The Complainant worked 8 hours per week / 32 hours per month from 2020 until 2023 for which she was paid €689.23 gross per month.    

This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated, and she has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to her former role.  The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where her employment ended on 21/02/2023 and she has processed her claim to the WRC on 31/10/2023. 

Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. 

CA-00059698-002 is a duplicate complaint and was withdrawn at hearing. 

CA-00059698-001

The Complainant submits they finished up for Christmas on 15 December 2022 and she enquired about a return date for after Christmas.  The Complainant submits the Respondent informed her that he did not have any work and that he would contact her with a return date.

The Complainant submits she thought that this was a bit strange as for the past eight and a half years they usually returned in and around the first Monday in January.  The Complainant submits that as the VAT, Tax etc were due on 23/01/23 and as she had heard nothing from the Respondent, she phoned him on 09/01/2023 to get the return-to-work date.  The Complainant submits the Respondent told her he still had no work and that he would let her know when she could return. 

The Complainant submits the Respondent phoned her on 19/01/2023 to ask her if she could come in to do the VAT etc on Thursday 19th and Friday 20th January.  The Complainant submits she asked the Respondent what the position was regarding her return to work to which he replied that if she did the VAT etc that he would have work for her in February.  The Complainant submits she completed these tasks and she submits the Respondent told her he would be in touch about a return date. 

The Complainant submits he phoned her on 01/02/2023 and asked her to meet him at the new premises he had acquired.  The Complainant submits the premises had a mezzanine floor with a steel ladder going up through the ceiling of the office.  The Complainant submits the Respondent explained to her that in the circumstances he could not bring her back to work in February as the only way to access the office was to climb the steel ladder which he did not expect her to climb and he told her he had ordered stairs.  The Complainant states she asked the Respondent if he was going to pay her to which he replied that he could not afford to pay her. 

The Complainant submits there was no further contact until 21/02/2023 at which time the Complainant submits she informed the Respondent that she was giving him notice of intention to claim redundancy.  The Complainant submits the Respondent told her he would contact his accountant [name redacted] and get him (the accountant) to do the necessary paperwork.

The Complainant submits she contacted the accountant by email on 29/03/2023 and he knew nothing about it (her redundancy).  The accountant forwarded the Complainant a Form RP77 on 19/04/2023 for completion by her which she duly did.  The Complainant sought to follow up with the Respondent on 27/04/2023 and again on 03/05/2023 and the Respondent told her the paperwork was submitted and not to contact him again. 

The Complainant was notified in correspondence by the relevant department that the incorrect paperwork had been submitted which she forwarded to the accountant who said he would resend the paperwork and there was further communication with the accountant up until 09/08/2023. 

The Complainant submits that sadly the accountant passed away and she was then in a position that she had no contact whatsoever as the Respondent would not take her calls.  The Complainant submits she phoned the WRC and they sent out the complaint forms. 

CA-00059698-001

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  In the circumstances no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

CA-00059698-001

The Relevant Law:

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)    have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)    be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)    be over the age of 16;

(4)    have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)    not have received a lump sum payment. 

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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 differentmanner 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…

Having heard the uncontested evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 2(a) above.  The business has ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed, and her work has ceased.  I am satisfied the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of her redundancy at the date of hearing. 

In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded.  The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

Commencement date:  31/07/2014

End of employment:  21/02/2023

Gross weekly pay:  €172.30

Hours worked per week: 8

The Complainant was made aware of the fact than 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 1952-1966.  The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department. 

Adjudicator note:   The Complainant worked 16 hours per week from 2014 – 2020.    

CA-00059698-001

I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of her employer to pay a redundancy.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria:

Commencement date:  31/07/2014

End of employment:    21/02/2023

Gross weekly pay:  €172.30

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. 

Claim for statutory redundancy; no show respondent;