ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055525
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Iosif Dobos | Ysy Scaffolding Ltd |
Representatives | Self Represented | Peter Dunlea Peninsula |
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-00067669-001 | 26/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
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.
The hearing was held remotely, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings
Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted.
Background:
The Complainant found that after 11 years service his revenue records were incomplete and this had a negative effect on his redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the Complainant has set out that he was employed from the 17/05/2013 to the 28/06/2024, as a Yardman, with a salary of €968.00 gross weekly. The company had gone under a number of name changes in the course of his employment and on the insolvency of the Respondent he was requested to provide details of the employment as the owner had not kept full records. The Complainant asserts that he provided these, but discovered that the redundancy payment paid did not incorporate the full service period. He subsequently discovered that there were gaps in his employment on the Revenue record, where his employer paid him in cash. The Complainant was not aware that his statutory contributions and deductions were not being made. The Complainant is one year from retirement and is now concerned at his records not being properly kept and the effect on his redundancy payment and the Construction Worker Pension Scheme (CWPS). |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Respondent Preliminary Submission It was submitted by the Respondent that the there was a lack of records on the employment, but informed the hearing that the Respondent did not wish to contest the claim and accepted the Complainant dates of employment made out on the Complaint form CA-00067669-001 as correct.
Although, they have gaps in their records, they accept the dates given by the Complainant as being correct with a service record of starting on 17/05/2013 to terminating on the 28/06/2024 as a Yardman with a final salary of €968.00 gross weekly. As per the Complaint form the Complainant’s last day of employment was 08/08/2024. The Respondent set out that they will comply with this and specifically asked that the Adjudicator to make a Decision to that effect, given the insolvency situation of the Respondent organisation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having heard the full admission of the within claim it is clear that the payment offered in redundancy was incorrect due to the lack of records. It is admitted by the Respondent that the Complainant is correct in their assertion that the figure is not correct and it is appropriate that the Respondent correct these oversights to ensure the Complainant receives the benefit of redundancy for his full service. In the circumstances where they accept that the records and payments have not been correctly made regarding the insurable employment and the CWPS fund, they should pay the Complainant Redundancy for the full redundancy to reflect his complete service, as per the Complaint form, (starting on 17/05/2013 to terminating on the 28/06/2024 as a Yardman with a salary of €968.00 gross weekly). The matter of the correction of the CWPS payment is outside of the authority of the Adjudicator and the Complainant should pursue this in the correct forum, noting that the point has been conceded. |
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 that the within claim under the Redundancy Payments Act is well founded Having heard the evidence and the fact that the respondent employer has ceased trading and/or intends to cease trading and to carry on business in the place where the employee was employed and that his work has ceased, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 based on the following facts accepted by the Respondent. 1. Start date: 17/05/2013 2. Date of notice of termination: 28/06/2024 3. Date of termination by employer: 08/08/2024 4. Gross weekly wage: €968.00 5. Weekly hours worked : 39 hours
This Decision is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period and the record is corrected by the Respondent and this should be corrected by the Respondent in making good on the claim. |
Dated: 4th March 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
Redundancy, insolvency, incorrect records, missing records. |