ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049391
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rory Walsh | Eugene Barrett Ceiling's And Partitions Ltd (in liquidation) |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Joseph Gibbons Liquidator (not in attendance) |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00060649-001 | 13/12/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00060649-002 | 13/12/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00060649-003 | 13/12/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints. The hearing was heard remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation and the respondent did not attend and the liquidator did not attend. There had been two previous scheduled dates for the hearing but it was not clear if the liquidator was on notice and the hearings were rescheduled.
Background:
The complainant submitted that he did not receive redundancy payment and did not receive his minimum notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00060649-001
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 07/05/2021 and his employment ended on 10/08/2023 and his gross weekly was €858. He said that work was busy and when he started there were around 30 people employed but that this was reduced down to just 2 people and there were on occasions problems with being paid. On 05/09/2023 he requested redundancy payment and submitted the RP77 and he was advised that the respondent is in liquidation and has not receive payment for notice or redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00060649-001
The respondent did not attend and advised the WRC on 12/03/2024 that the respondent was in liquidation. The liquidator advised the WRC that they would not attend the hearing as they had no knowledge of the facts surrounding the case and could not add anything to the proceedings. They advised that a decision should be issued to them and they would consider the matter as there are no funds available but an application may be made subject to relevant legislation. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00060649-001
The respondent did not attend and the liquidator did not attend and I am satisfied that they are on notice of this hearing. The complainant gave evidence that he did not receive payment for minimum notice and also said in evidence that this is a duplicate of complaint CA-00060649-003 and therefore I find this complaint is not well founded and dismiss this complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00060649-002
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 07/05/2021 and his employment ended on 10/08/2023 and his gross weekly was €858. He said that work was busy and when he started there were around 30 people employed but that this was reduced down to just 2 people and there were on occasions problems with being paid. On 05/09/2023 he requested redundancy payment and submitted the RP77 and he was advised that the respondent is in liquidation and has not receive payment for notice or redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00060649-002
The respondent did not attend and advised the WRC on 12/03/2024 that the respondent was in liquidation. The liquidator advised the WRC that they would not attend the hearing as they had no knowledge of the facts surrounding the case and could not add anything to the proceedings. They advised that a decision should be issued to them and they would consider the matter as there are no funds available but an application may be made subject to relevant legislation. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00060649-002
The complainant gave evidence that he was made redundant and no redundancy payment was received. The respondent did not attend and the liquidator did not attend and confirmed in submissions that the respondent was going through liquidation.
Section 7 provides for 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.
(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
Taking into consideration the complainant’s undisputed evidence and submissions of the respondent I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Date of Commencement: 07/05/2021 Date of Termination: 10/08/2023 Gross Weekly Pay: €858 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00060649-003
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 07/05/2021 and his employment ended on 10/08/2023 and his gross weekly was €858. He said that work was busy and when he started there were around 30 people employed but that this reduced down to just 2 people and there were on occasions issues with being paid. On 05/09/2023 he requested redundancy payment and submitted the RP77 and he has been advised that the respondent is in liquidation and has not receive payment for notice or redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00060649-003
The respondent did not attend and advised the WRC on 12/03/2024 that the respondent was in liquidation. The liquidator advised the WRC that they would not attend the hearing as they had no knowledge of the facts surrounding the case and could not add anything to the proceedings. They advised that a decision should be issued to them and they would consider the matter as there are no funds available but an application may be made subject to relevant legislation. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00060649-003
The complainant gave evidence that he was made redundant and no redundancy payment was given. The respondent did not attend and the liquidator did not attend and confirmed in submissions that the respondent was going through liquidation. The complainant gave evidence that he did not receive payment for minimum notice. Minimum period of notice. 4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—…. …(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,
The complainant was in continuous service for a period of over two years and I find the complaint well founded and award the complainant €1,716. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00060649-001 This is a duplicate of complaint CA-00060649-003 and therefore I find this complaint is not well founded and dismiss this complaint. CA-00060649-002 Taking into consideration the complainant’s undisputed evidence and submissions of respondent I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Date of Commencement: 07/05/2021 Date of Termination: 10/08/2023 Gross Weekly Pay: €858 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. CA-00060649-003 I find the complaint well founded and award the complainant €1,716. |
Dated: 20th of September 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy, minimum notice, liquidation. |