ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007725
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Carpenter | A Construction Compasny |
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-00010339-001 | 21/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a carpenter by the respondent since 2011 on a wage of €490 per week. He was made redundant. His employer made deductions from his payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (hereafter, the Act). |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was approached by the respondent in or around July 21st 2016 and told that he was to be made redundant. It was an amicable conversation and the respondent said he would ‘look after him’. On September 29th he received a letter from the respondent headed ‘Redundancy Package’ outlining the complainant’s redundancy payment. On the course of this he confirmed that the total sum due by way or redundancy payment was €5,747.00 as calculated by the respondent’s accountant. However, he proceeded to make deductions from the payment of €1082.39 in respect of a stolen saw (whose loss had been reported to the Gardaí,) €260.00 for replacement van parts and €120.00 for labour on the van, leaving a total of €4284.61. The complainant wrote to the respondent on October 17th, 2016 pointing out that these were unlawful deductions and seeking his P45 and payment for annual leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for his failure to do so. Correspondence in relation to the hearing was sent to the address at which the complainant communicated with him, which he stated was the residence of the respondent’s parents. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is a simple matter. The entitlement to redundancy payments arises under statute and the entitlement is clearly spelled out in the Act. If there are outstanding issues between an employee and an employer there are other ways to deal with these and making deductions from a statutory payment is not one of them. |
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.
The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment in respect of his service from May 3rd 2011 until July 7th 2016 subject to his having been in insurable employment throughout that period. I uphold complaint CA-00010339-001 and award the complainant his full entitlement due under the Redundancy Payments Act, less the sum of €4284.61 already received. |
Dated: 16th November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Redundancy payment, deduction by employer |