ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054667
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gerard Greenan | Patrick Gilsenan trading as Call - A - Car |
Representatives | Aisling Finlay NCUCIS Monaghan Citizens Information Centre | No appearance |
Complaint(s):
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-00066575-001 | 09/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance withand/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 complaint.
Background:
This is an uncontested redundancy complaint. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Under oath the Complainant gave the following evidence: He worked as a vehicle maintenance operative from 4 March 2010 on the Respondent’s fleet of buses/ vehicles. He prepared vehicles for NCT testing and kept them in good working order. The Respondent closed the business in 2023 and the Complainant remained working for the Respondent for a short time, thereafter, preparing the vehicles for sale until 20 October 2023, when his employment with the Respondent ended. For the last 52 weeks of his employment the Complainant was paid a gross weekly wage of €528.69. To establish his reckonable service the Complainant accepts that for a period of 26 in 2014 he was absent from work on certified illness leave. He accepts that this period of 27 weeks of 2014 is not reckonable to calculate his redundancy entitlement. The Complainant accepts that the Respondent is unable to discharge his debts and that the Complainant’s redundancy entitlement will be paid out of the State Insolvency Fund. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. After the conclusion of the Adjudication hearing the Respondent contacted the WRC by telephone advising that he had not been aware that a hearing was taking place that day. However, he advised WRC staff that he was satisfied for a decision to issue on the basis of the Complainant’s evidence alone. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, which was given under oath, I am satisfied that a redundancy situation existed and that as of the date of the Adjudication hearing that he was not paid a redundancy payment. I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on having had insurable employment (under the Social Welfare Acts) for the duration of his employment as set out below, bar a period of 27 weeks in 2014 when the Complainant was absent from work on certified sick leave and based on the following facts: Commencement date: 4 March 2010 End of Employment: 20 October 2023 Gross weekly pay: € 528.69 – based on an average of weekly pay in the last 52 weeks of employment. I note that the Complainant accepts that the Respondent is unable to discharge his statutory obligations due to a lack of available funds. |
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.
This complaint is well-founded and the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following: Commencement date: 4 March 2010 End of Employment: 20 October 2023 During the above employment, the Complainant was on certified sick leave for 27 weeks in 2014 Gross weekly pay: € 528.69 – based on an average of weekly pay in the last 52 weeks of employment.
|
Dated: 21.02.25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
Redundancy – uncontested |