ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056836
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Timothy O Sullivan | Con Leens Salads Limited |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Kate Leen |
Complaint:
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-00069154-001 | 09/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/11/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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 complaints.
Background:
The Complainant appeared in person and gave his evidence on affirmation.
Ms Kate Leen, Company Director, appeared on behalf of the Respondent and gave her evidence on affirmation.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Leen advised that she was only informed of the existence of the complaint and the hearing on the days prior to the hearing date. She was provided with all the relevant information by the Workplace Relations Commission on 20 November 2025. She was also asked on two separate occasions if she wished to adjourn the hearing but agreed to continue.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was employed as a Chef with the Respondent since in or around 20 July 2019 but was unable to confirm this date exactly. He was given notice on 28 December 2024 that the Respondent was closing its business. He returned to work after the Christmas break and worked two further days before the business ceased trading. It was his evidence that he wrote to the Respondent requesting that it complete the RP77 form, but this was not signed. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It was the Respondent’s evidence that the business was not viable and had no option but to cease trading. Ms Leen had no recollection of receiving any message or form from the Complainant. She accepted the Complainant was entitled to redundancy but advised the Respondent was not in a position to discharge the redundancy amount. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the circumstances where there is no dispute, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967. |
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 direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) calculated on the basis of the following information. The Complainant commenced employment on 20 July 2019. The Complainant’s received notice on 28 December 2024. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 3 February 2025 (to account for the Complainant’s minimum notice period plus the two days he worked in January 2025). The Complainant was paid €480 gross per week based on a 32 hour week. |
Dated: 05-12-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Redundancy |