ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053333
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shadid Kamal | Asba Meats Limited |
Representatives | Stiofan Fitzpatrick Solicitors | No Appearance |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00065305-001 | 09/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00065305-002 | 09/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant attended with his Solicitor at the hearing.
Submissions were received in advance of the hearing and documentary evidence relied upon at the hearing.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00065305-001 The Complainant submitted that he had requested a pay increase prior to going on annual leave. However, upon his return, he was handed a letter dated 15 April 2024 stating that his employment was being terminated by way of redundancy. It was his case that there had been no consultation period, nor was any offer of alternative employment made. During his search for employment following the termination, the Complainant discovered, in November 2024, an advertisement for his former role at the Respondent company. Evidence of this was presented at the hearing. The Complainant also provided evidence of his efforts to mitigate his loss, along with a calculation of his financial loss, amounting to €18,884. CA-00065305-002 It was the Complainant’s evidence that despite being advised he would receive his redundancy payment, it has never been forthcoming. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00065305-001 and CA-00065305-002 After allowing a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly notified of the hearing. Accordingly, I proceeded with the hearing in their absence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00065305-001 Having regard for the undisputed evidence of the Complainant, I find he was unfairly dismissed. I find there was a complete absence of a consultation period regarding the risk of redundancy or any engagement whatsoever with the Complainant around the role. Particular weight has been placed on the online job advertisement presented for the same role as the Complainant a few months later, this is of concern particularly where the Complainant had asked for a pay rise but was instead met with his employment being terminated. CA-00065305-002 I allow the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00065305-001 I find that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. His account remains undisputed, and his extensive documentation of efforts to secure alternative employment is accepted as credible evidence. Having considered his financial loss, I determine that compensation in the amount of €18,844 is just and equitable, particularly in light of the fact that the dismissal occurred without any adherence to fair procedures. CA-00065305-002 I allow the Complainant’s appeal pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) based on the undisputed evidence presented at the hearing. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant a redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) calculated on the basis of the following information. The Complainant commenced employment on 6 May 2021. The Complainant’s received notice on 15 April 2024. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 29 April 2024. The Complainant was paid €541.77 per week gross based on a 40-hour week |
Dated: 4th June 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissal + Redundancy |