ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055119
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jerry Clare | Diluca Bistro Ltd The Danby Hotel |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00067198-001 | 06/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
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. 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. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submits that he did not receive redundancy payment. The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 23/08/2021 and his employment ended on 24/08/2024 when the business closed. He said for a period of time hours were reduced and there was lay off from 25/12/2023 until he returned on 29/04/2024. He worked as a chef and there were occasions where he did not get paid as payment was often late and that you could be waiting 3 weeks for payment. When he returned to work after the layoff they were awaiting on the hotel to reopen and this open date was pushed out. He found out that the electricity was then going to be cut off as the bill had not been paid and refugees who were staying there had to be accommodated elsewhere. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and did not explain their reason for attendance. In communication on their behalf to the WRC on 19/12/224 the respondent submitted that the government had not paid them and that they had to close the hotel and they wanted to pay the staff redundancy but were unable to afford it and requested the government be asked to pay it. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submitted his employment ended without notice owing to the closure of the hotel. The respondent did not attend and I am satisfied that the respondent is on notice of this hearing.
The complainant’s evidence is that there had been occasions where there were delays in payment of wages and he had been on lay off and returned expecting the hotel would reopen and the electricity bill had not been paid and it did not reopen. The respondent submitted in communication to the WRC on 19/12/2024 that the government had not paid them and that they had to close the hotel and they wanted to pay the staff redundancy but could not afford to do so and that the government should be asked to pay it.
Section 7 provides for General right to redundancy payment. 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 four 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 for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned 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…
Taking into consideration all the submissions and evidence, I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:
Date of Commencement: 23/08/2021 Date of Termination: 24/08/2024 Gross Weekly Pay: €671.70 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
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 appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Date of Commencement: 23/08/2021 Date of Termination: 24/08/2024 Gross Weekly Pay: €671.70 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
Dated: 14th of May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy payment, respondent did not attend |