Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Declan  Kane

Mooney Milk Distribution Ltd

Representatives

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-00071651-001

17/05/2025

 The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 3 December 2002 until his employment ended on 2 March 2024.  The Complainant submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, claiming that he did not receive his redundancy payment upon termination of his employment. 

The Respondent was a milk distribution company.  The Respondent did not attend the hearing and did not provide any submission or written response to the complaint.

Preliminary Issue -Time Limit

At hearing I clarified the time limits provided for in the Redundancy Payments Act for the Complainant.  The Complainant confirmed that he was initially advised by the Respondent at 8 pm on the evening of 1 March 2024 that his employment was to terminate with effect from that day.  He said he was advised that the Liquidator would be in touch the following week to let him know about the next steps.  He advised that he received no contact from either the Respondent or the Liquidator.  He advised that he made several attempts to contact the Respondent by phone and text message but to no avail.

The Complainant outlined that he had checked the register on CRO and noted that the company was no longer listed, and in that context, he accepted that the company had been placed in liquidation and that it might take some time for matters to be addressed.  He advised that he had been told by a former colleague that this was the case.

He stated that on 10 June 2024 he sent a text message to the Respondent stating, “I need information about the Liquidator to get the ball rolling on redundancy, if you have any please”.  He stated that it was only when he did not receive a response to that text that he became concerned.  He stated that he checked the CRO register again and was surprised to see that the company was now listed again on the register.  He submitted that in that context the earliest date on which it became clear that he had any cause for concern was 11 June 2024.  He advised that he was seeking an extension due to the fact that he was hospitalised for surgery in late 2024, that he was receiving ongoing treatment and was unable to travel to get advice and could not afford legal advice.  He confirmed that it was only when he met with the Department of Social Protection that he understood that he needed to raise the matter with the WRC. In all of the circumstances he requested an extension of time for submission of his complaint.

The substantive case

In his complaint form, the Complainant stated that he had recently contacted the Department of Social Protection to establish his entitlements regarding redundancy as he had received no communication from either the Respondent or from the Liquidator whom he understood had been appointed to the company. He stated that the Department had advised him to submit his case, in the first instance to the WRC.  He further stated that he wasn’t aware that there was a 12-month period within which he had to make his claim for redundancy and had been told that the Liquidator would be in touch.  He stated that he hadn’t heard anything despite having made efforts to find out what was happening.

At hearing the Complainant confirmed that he had worked for the Respondent from 3 January 2003 to 2 March 2024 and that during that time he had worked on average 50 hours per week.  He confirmed that he earned €650 p.w. gross pay and€550 p.w. nett pay.  He provided copies of Revenue documents and bank transfer details to ground his complaint, demonstrating that he was an employee of the Respondent and his level of earnings.

He confirmed that at 8 pm on the evening of 1 March 2024 the Respondent advised that he would be made redundant with effect from the following day, that he should take the company van home and that he would be contacted the following week by the liquidator in relation to next steps.   He stated that thereafter he received no contact from either the Respondent or the Liquidator.

The Complainant advised that for a period of approximately 3 months after the Respondent had made him redundant the company was no longer listed on the CRO register, but that in or around June 2024 the company was again listed and has remained on CRO up to the date of hearing.  He further advised that he made several attempts to contact the Respondent regarding the redundancy process but never received a response.

The Respondent did not attend and submitted no evidence. I  was satisfied that notice of the date, time and place of the Hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.

Preliminary Issue – Time limit

I noted that the Complainant only became aware that there was an issue of concern in relation to processing his entitlement to redundancy after he did not receive a response to his text enquiring about the Liquidator on 10 June 2024 and that he was unaware that in such circumstances he neede to address his complaint to the WRC. I noted the Complainant request for an extension of the time limit to 2 years in accordance with section 12(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act.

The Law

Section 12(2) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Act states “where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the Tribunal, if it is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.”

In the instant case the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent had assured him that he would be contacted by a Liquidator in order to advance the processing of his entitlement to redundancy and having had a positive working relationship with the Respondent for 22 years it was not unreasonable for the Complainant to believe that this would happen.  I noted that soon after the Complainant became concerned about the matter he was admitted to hospital for surgery and remained there for a number of weeks.  The Complainant provided medical certification of his medical condition and hospitalisation.

It is clear from the Complainant’s evidence, under oath, that the Complainant was not in a position to attend elsewhere to get legal advice and could not afford to seek legal advice due to the financial circumstances arising from the unpaid redundancy. I found the Complainant’s explanation for the delay to be entirely plausible and I noted that but for the initial information provided by the Respondent regarding the Liquidator and the subsequent hospitalisation of the Complainant and his financial circumstances the Complainant would have made his complaints within time. 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 12(2) and in all the circumstances described, I consider that there is reasonable cause to grant an extension of the time limit for submission of these complaints and I so decide. 

The substantive Issue

I considered carefully the complaint made by the Complainant and his evidence at hearing.  I am satisfied that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent from 3 January 2003 to 2 March 2024.  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept the Complainant position that his employment was terminated from 2 March 2024 due to redundancy.

I noted that the Complainant had made several attempts to engage with the Respondent in relation to his redundancy but that the Respondent failed to respond and that when he did not receive a response, he submitted his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on the advice of the Department of Social Protection.

Section 19-(1) of the act states that “Upon the dismissal be reason of redundancy of an employee who is entitled under this part to redundancy payment, or upon termination by such an employee in accordance with section 12(2) of his contract of employment, his employer shall pay him an amount which is referred to in this act as the lump sum.

(2) schedule 3 shall apply in relation to the lump sum”

The Respondent did not attend the hearing, did not make contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to explain its non-attendance and did not submit any evidence in relation to the complaint.  I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 15 minutes on the day of hearing and I allowed time elapse before finalising this decision to provide for contact from the Respondent to explain its’ non-attendance. I was satisfied that notice containing the details of the date, time and place of the hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.

As no further communication was received at the time of finalising this decision and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Complainant was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for the non-attendance, I must conclude that the within complaint is well-founded

Based on the foregoing it is clear that the Complainant has an entitlement to redundancy based on his service in employment with the Respondent and I so find. 

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967-2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that act. 

I have found that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded, and I so decide.

I note that the Act confirms that an employee who is eligible and who qualifies for redundancy payment is entitled to two weeks normal weekly remuneration for every year of service, plus a bonus week.

I note that the Complainant had a total of 22.18 years of service (44.36 weeks) and that he is entitled to a bonus week, bringing his total entitlement to 45.36 weeks. I further note that the Complainant was in receipt of €660 gross pay per week.  On that basis I find that his entitlement to redundancy to be the amount of €27,216.00 and I direct the Respondent to pay that amount to the Complainant within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Should the Respondent confirm his inability to pay the statutory redundancy entitlement, the Respondent is instructed to co-operate with the Complainant in the provision of all necessary paperwork to enable the Complainant to claim his statutory redundancy payment from the Redundancy Payment Scheme.

redundancy