ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010097
Parties:
|
|
Complainant |
Respondent |
|
Anonymised Parties |
A Truck Driver |
A Haulier |
|
Representatives |
The Complainant attended in person and was not represented |
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the Hearing |
Complaint:
|
Act |
Complaint Reference No. |
Date of Receipt |
|
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 |
CA-00013104-001 |
13/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Enda Murphy
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:
|
This complaint concerns a claim by the Complainant that he had not been paid his statutory redundancy payment when his employment was terminated by the Respondent by reason of redundancy. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
|
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Truck Driver from 18 October, 2014 until 14 February, 2017 when his employment was terminated. The Complainant adduced evidence that he worked an average of 60 hours per week and was paid a gross weekly wage of €600.00. The Complainant submitted that he attended for work on 14 February, 2017 and was informed by the Respondent that there was no further work available for him. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s business ceased at that juncture because the company did not have a valid haulage license. The Complainant contends that he requested payment of his statutory redundancy entitlements from the Respondent following the termination of his employment; however, the Respondent has failed to discharge the payment of his statutory redundancy entitlements. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
|
The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to this complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. In the circumstances, I find that the Respondent’s non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unreasonable in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions:
|
The Complainant gave evidence that his employment was terminated on 14 February, 2017 when the Respondent’s business closed without any prior notification or warning. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was employed on a continuous basis with the Respondent from 18 October, 2014 until 14 February, 2017 when his employment was terminated by reason of redundancy following the closure of the Respondent’s business. |
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 Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payment Acts based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 18 October, 2014 - Date of termination: 14 February, 2017 - Gross weekly wage: €600.00 This award is made subject to the complainant fulfilling current social welfare requirements in relation to PRSI contributions. |
Dated: 2nd February 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Enda Murphy
Key Words:
|
Redundancy Payments Acts – statutory redundancy entitlement – closure of business – uncontested claim |