Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Redmond

Murphys Victualler

Representatives

  N/A

N/A

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-00062490-001

28/03/2024

In January 2003, the Complainant commenced work as a qualified butcher for the Respondent. The Complainant submitted that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy in January 2024. The Complainant worked approximately four or five hours per week, earning approximately €80 gross per week. The Complainant submitted his Complaint Form to the WRC on 28 March 2024. In his Complaint Form, the Complainant submitted that he was due a redundancy payment.

The Complainant provided oral submissions.

Preliminary Matter – Correct Respondent:

During the Hearing, the Complainant was asked for his ROS Employment Detail Summary concerning this employment. The Complainant confirmed that in the same document, his employer is named as “Damian Murphy”. The Complainant accepted that he had named the Respondent on the Complaint Form he filed on 28 March 2024 as “Murphys Victualler”.

Substantive Matter – Redundancy Payment:

The Complainant submitted that he was employed as a qualified butcher by the Respondent from 2003 until 2024. He submitted that he worked in the slaughterhouse. His tasks included: killing and dressing; as well as meeting with vets and with the relevant department regarding carcasses and hygiene matters. He submitted that he worked on his own, under the direction of the Respondent owner. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent owner passed away in January 2024. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent owner’s wife told him at the end of January 2024 that they would not be using the slaughterhouse anymore and that his employment was terminated.

The Complainant submitted that he believed that he was entitled to a redundancy payment after so many years of service. He submitted that he did not send any redundancy forms to the Respondent and that he did not receive any redundancy payment. The Complainant submitted that he has not been contacted at all about his redundancy payment. The Complainant submitted that he did not receive the COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing.

I noted that the Respondent was informed of the details of the Hearing by way of letter dated 3 July 2024. On 22 August 2024, the Respondent sought a postponement of the Hearing. This application was refused by the WRC on 26 August 2024. I note that it was the third postponement application made by the Respondent – the previous two postponement applications had been granted.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing on 27 August 2024 as scheduled. The WRC attempted to contact the Respondent’s representative by phone and by email but received no response. A grace period was also allowed for the Respondent to attend. I reviewed the file and I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing but did not attend.

The Law:

Preliminary Decisions:

In Brothers of Charity (Roscommon) Ltd. v. Marian Keigher EDA1014, the Labour Court considered the determination of an issue by way of preliminary decision. The Labour Court referred to the judgments of Kenny J. in Tara Explorations and Development Co. Ltd v. Minister for Industry and Commerce [1975] IR 242; and Hardiman J. in B.T.F. v. Director of Public Prosecutions 2 ILRM 367 (the “B.T.F. Case”). In the latter case Hardiman J, found:

"It is often a difficult and delicate decision as to whether to try a particular issue as a preliminary matter. In a case where a point is raised which in and of itself and without regard to anything else may terminate the whole proceedings, clearly a strong case can be made for its trial as a preliminary issue. The classic example is where the Statute of Limitations is pleaded. In other cases, however, the position may be much less clear".

In Donegal Meat Processors v. Donal Gillespie t/a Foyle Donegal UDD2114, the Labour Court noted that, seeking for the substantive issue and the jurisdictional issue to be dealt with together, was:

“akin to asking the court to exercise its jurisdiction before it determines whether or not it has jurisdiction in the first instance. […] Only if the court determines that it has jurisdiction to do so can it go on to consider the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal itself”.

Findings and Conclusion:

Following the caselaw outlined above and particularly the B.T.F. Case, I find that there is a “strong case” for determining this matter by way of preliminary decision.

Having heard the Complainant’s evidence and having reviewed the Complainant’s ROS Employment Detail Summary concerning this employment, I am satisfied that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint. Therefore this complaint is not well founded. The Complainant’s appeal is not allowed.

I find that the Complainant has not named the correct respondent in this complaint and therefore I decide that the complaint is not well founded. The Complainant’s appeal is not allowed.

Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012, Incorrect Respondent.