Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  Gilligan

Merit Epos Systems Ltd Jbm/Merit

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Myles Kirby Kirby Healy Chartered Accountants

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-00063242-001

01/05/2024

The complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 22 September 2013, working as an IT Support Technician. She worked 40 hours a week and was paid a gross monthly salary of €2,305.58. Her employment ended on 3 August 2022, when the respondent company was liquidated. A complaint form was received by the WRC on 1 May 2024.  A liquidator was appointed to the respondent entity on 19 August 2022.

The liquidator for the respondent, Mr Myles Kirby, raised a preliminary point.

The liquidator submits that the complaint was brought long outside the deadline and the standard time frame in which to bring such a complaint has long passed. The liquidator submits that the complainant submitted a claim for redundancy to his office, but he was unable to certify it without further detail on the transfer of her employment to another company.  The liquidator submits that the complainant refused to provide information and documents on the circumstances of her purported redundancy and accordingly the liquidator was unable to certify her claim. Any delay is attributable to the complainant.  The liquidator submits that there are no grounds for an extension of the time frame due to any practice of this office and the matter should be concluded on that basis.

At the hearing the liquidator gave evidence on affirmation.

The liquidator stated that the respondent company ceased trading on 3 August 2022 and immediately another company was set up by a director of the respondent company, with all the employees of the respondent company, including the complainant transferring to it.

In her complaint form to the WRC, the complainant submits that she was made redundant on 3 August 2022.  She did not receive any official notice from the company at that time.  She received a letter from the liquidator on 16 September 2022 asking her to submit a form for any claim she might have against the respondent.  She returned this form within a week or so via post. She contacted the liquidator six months later and they told her that they had not received her form. She was sent a new form to resubmit which she did via post on 3 August 2023. On 14 September 2023, she received a letter from the liquidator’s office stating that the claim was being questioned. The complainant replied to the liquidator answering the questions put to her.  On 9 October 2023, she received an email from the liquidator’s office stating that her information had been forwarded to the liquidator for his consideration and he was awaiting further instruction on the matter. As of the date of the complaint form to the WRC, the complainant had heard nothing from the liquidator.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing.

The complainant stated that she had received forms from the liquidator’s office in September 2022 and had returned them by post within a few days.  She heard nothing until May 2023 when she phoned the liquidator’s office to find out what was happening.  It took the liquidator’s office a month to get back to her.  She was told they had not received her documents. 

The complainant was issued with paperwork which she got on 3 August 2023; she duly completed the documents and sent them to the liquidator’s office, by post and by email. Receipt of these documents was confirmed to her on 22 August 2023.  The complainant was asked to submit some more documents, for example, he final payslip. 

On 14 September 2023, the complainant received a letter from the liquidator informing her that she was not entitled to a redundancy payment. The complainant replied to that letter in October 2023, with some questions.

The complainant stated that she never received formal notice that the respondent company was going to cease trading nor did the respondent follow correct redundancy procedures.

The complainant stated that she started working with the new company, on 5 August 2022.

When the complainant heard nothing back from the liquidator she sent her complaint to the WRC.

Section 24 of the 1967 Act, states:

“Time-limit on claims for redundancy payment.

24.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment—

(a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or

(b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or

(c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.

(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a weekly payment unless he has become entitled to a lump sum.

(2A) Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall there upon become so entitled.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2A), where an employee establishes to the satisfaction of the Director General—

(a) that failure to make a claim for a lump sum before the end of the period of 104 weeks mentioned in that subsection was caused by his ignorance of the identity of his employer or employers or by his ignorance of a change of employer involving his dismissal and engagement under a contract with another employer, and

(b) that such ignorance arose out of or was contributed to by a breach of a statutory duty to give the employee either notice of his proposed dismissal or a redundancy certificate, the period of 104 weeks shall commence from such date as the Director Generalat his discretion considers reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.”

I have considered this matter carefully. 

The complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC almost one year and nine months after the date her employment ended in the respondent company. Whereas there may have been some delays in the processing of documents, this does not justify such an inordinate delay in lodging a complaint to the WRC.

The complainant failed to make her claim for a redundancy payment within 52 weeks.  I find she has not established a “reasonable cause” that would allow me to extend the time limit as allowed by the Act.

I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Reasonable cause.