ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055429
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daren McKevitt | Mc Cabin Construction Limited |
Representatives | North Leinster Citizens Information Service CLG | No attendance |
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-00067477-001 | 19/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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 complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Evidence was given on affirmation.
I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
While the WRC registered correspondence to the Respondent was returned by An Post, correspondence was we sent by normal post on 8 January 2025. The Secretariat of the WRC spoke with the company director by telephone on the 12 February 2025. He advised that he was not at the address of the company's registered office with the CRO.
The Company director said he would not be attending the hearing.
He was advised to engage with the WRC by email.
There is no further engagement by the Respondent.
The Respondent company was incorporated with the Companies Registration Office on 9 July 2019. The status of the Respondent as per the Companies Registration Office at the date of this decision was normal and the address of the Respondent had not been changed with the CRO at any time since its incorporation in 2019.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant's case is that he started working for the Respondent’s sole director and shareholder on 1 August 2017. He last worked for the Respondent company at the start of January 2024. He was put on layoff on the 8 January 2024 due to shortage of work and has not worked since that date. He was in contact with the Respondent and a number of occasions seeking clarification on when he would return to work. The Complainant texted the Respondent seeking to return to work or to be paid "what I'm owed". He sent an RP77 to the Respondent on the May 2024 seeking a redundancy payment. The Complainant sent a text message to the director of the Respondent requesting his redundancy and advising he would have to make a complaint to the WRC. The Respondent director replied by text message "do whatever you want". The Complainant was in receipt of wages of €850 gross per week. The Complainant did not receive pay slips and did not have a contract of employment. I was provided with Revenue Commissioners Tax Credit certificates for the years 2019- 2024 which noted the Respondent as the Complainant's employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by the Respondent or on its behalf. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 51 Companies Act 2014 sets out that any document left at or sent by post to the place recorded at the CRO as the situation of the registered office of a company is deemed by law to have been left at or sent by post to the registered office of the company, notwithstanding that the situation of its registered office may have changed. While the Respondent was not operating from the Companies registered office, pursuant to the above section of the Companies Act, I deem that the Respondent was served the notice of the hearing. I accept the Complainant's evidence that he was engaged by a director of the Respondent in 2017 and that the Respondent was incorporated in 2019 and transferred to the Respondent pursuant to the TUPE regulations. I accept that he had continuity of service and that his start date for the purposes of the redundancy calculation was 1 August 2017. While the Complainant did not serve an PR9 form on the Respondent, I find that the series of texts he had with the Respondent in January 2024 contained the same requirements as an RP9. I note the Respondent did not provide work for the Complainant following same as required under S.13 of the Act Redundancy Payment Act 1967. I find that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy. |
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 find this came is well founded. The Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts on the following facts: Date of commencement of employment 1 August 2017 Date of termination: 30 January 2024 Gross weekly wage €850.00 The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 04/06/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words: Lay off . RP9 . Statutory redundancy |