Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel Holt

RLC Transport Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

Self-represented by Jacqueline Kane, Director

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00063667-001

23/05/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00063667-002

23/05/2024

The Complainant commenced employment on 12th February 2018. He was placed on temporary layoff on 7th February 2024 and has not worked for the Respondent since that date. His gross weekly pay was €703.80 based on a 40-hour working week.

The Complainant provided submissions at the commencement of the hearing, which he had understood had been sent to the WRC in advance but which had not been seen by the Adjudication Officer or Respondent. The Respondent, having had an opportunity to read through the submission, had no objection to it being submitted at the hearing.

Both the Complainant and Respondent were sworn in and gave evidence.

The Complainant’s case is that he was made redundant and has not received his redundancy entitlement or payment for his notice period. He presented evidence in the form of a letter dated 7th February 2024 confirming that he had been placed on temporary layoff on 2nd February 2024. However, he stated that he did work that week.

The Complainant made several attempts to contact the Respondent after this but received no response.  After the required notice period had passed, he deemed he had been made redundant.

On 27th March 2024 he sent form RP9 to the company’s registered address and also sent it by email. No response was received to this and on 18th April, 2024 the Complainant sent form RP77. There was no response received to this either and so he has brought this application so that he can claim his redundancy payment.

The Complainant also submits that the Respondent did not provide him with minimum notice of the termination of his employment as required under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. He is claiming for four weeks pay in lieu of notice in the amount of €2,812.

The Respondent does not dispute any of the Complainant’s evidence or claims.

Due to some difficult family circumstances affecting the business, the Respondent is not in a position to respond to either complaint.

The questions for me to decide are whether the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment and a payment in lieu of a statutory notice period.

CA-00063667-001 – Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended (the “Act”), provides as follows:

"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 two 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 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, or 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.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee shall be taken as having been laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period if he has been laid off or kept on short-time for a period of four or more consecutive weeks, or for a period of six or more weeks which are not consecutive but which fall within a period of thirteen consecutive weeks."

Section 12 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 provides:

" 12. (1) An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off or kept on short-time unless he gives to his employer notice (in this Part referred to as a notice of intention to claim) in writing of his intention to claim redundancy payment in respect of lay-off or short-time.”

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, as amended, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.  Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment.

As the Complainant acknowledged that he worked the week of 2nd February 2024 then I am taking the operative date of his layoff to be the date of the letter supplied, which is 7th February 2024.

CA-00063667-002 – Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973, as amended, provides as follows:

(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—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(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,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, …”

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant has been employed by the Respondent for more than five years but less than ten years and is, therefore, entitled to a notice payment of four weeks which amounts to €2,815.20 gross (€703.80 gross weekly wage x 4).

CA-00063667-001 – Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

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 declare that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment calculated in accordance with the following criteria:

·       Date of commencement: 12th February 2018

·       Date of termination: 7th February 2024

·       Gross weekly wage: €703.80 (subject to the statutory wage ceiling of €600 per week)

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

CA-00063667-002 – Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

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.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that this complaint is well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €2,815.20 gross within 7 days of the date of this decision.

Redundancy – Minimum notice