Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Paul  Foley

Wizzki Recruit Limited The Hire Lab

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr Maurice Buckley CEO

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-00072078-001

03/06/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00072078-002

03/06/2025

The Complainant was made redundant from his position of software engineer on 14 March 2025. He started work on 16 January 2020 and his salary at the date of redundancy was €52,000 p.a. the Complainant submits that the outstanding redundancy payment of €6,787.40. was not  paid to him under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, as amended (“the 1967 Act”).

The Complainant further submits that he was not paid wages amounting to €2218.87 net at the termination of his employment and that this was in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”).

CA-00072078-001 Redundancy:

The Complainant gave evidence that after being made redundant on 14 March 2025 he followed up with the Respondent in April and May 2025 to enquire about his redundancy payment, but no monies were forthcoming. The sum calculated by the Respondent, and accepted by the Complainant was

CA-00072078-002 Payment of Wages:

The Complainant stated that he was due the outstanding sum of €2218.47 in wages which were not paid to him at cessation of employment.

Mr Maurice Buckley, CEO with the Respondent accepted that the outstanding redundancy sum, and wages as stated in the Complainant’s evidence were correct. He submitted that it was always his intention to pay the Complainant the sums due. However, due to cashflow problems he said that he was not currently in a position to pay the sums, but the company was due monies in September, and he would be in a position then to pay the monies due.   

CA-00072078-001 Redundancy:

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

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

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

Based on the evidence of the Complainant, and acknowledged by the Respondent, regarding the redundancy  date and the cessation of the employment of the Complainant,  I find that he was made redundant under Section 7 of the 1967 Act.  I allow the Complainants appeal. Whilst the Respondent CEO gave plausible evidence of current cashflow issues, it does not absolve the Respondent from its obligations under the 1967 Act.  I award the Complainant statutory redundancy on the following basis. Section 4. (1) of the 1967 Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.”

CA-00072078-002 Payment of Wages:

Section 5 of the 1991 Act in its applicable parts provides:

(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

(2) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term, and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.

(6) Where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

Redress is provided at section 6 of the 1991 Act where it states:

1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4C or  as respects a deduction made by an employer from the wages or tips or gratuities of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is, in whole or in part, well founded as respects the deduction or payment shall include a direction to the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he considers reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages, or tips or gratuities as the case may be (after the making of any lawful deductions therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment,

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount presented to paragraph (a), twice the former amount.

(2)

(a) An adjudication officer shall not give a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to a deduction or payment referred to in that subsection at any time after the commencement of hearing of proceedings in a court brought by the employee concerned in respect of the deduction or payment.

(b) An employee shall not be entitled to recover any amount in proceedings in a court in respect of such a deduction or payment as aforesaid at any time after an adjudication officer has given a decision referred to in subsection (1) in relation to the deduction or payment.

 It was the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that he was not paid a portion of his salary, amounting to €2218 as outlined in his  evidence therefore I find his complaint under the Payment of Wages act 1991 was  well founded.

CA-00072078-001: Redundancy Payment: 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 allow the Complainant’s appeal and, subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, he is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis:

Date of Commencement: 16 January 2020

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment ceasing on: 14 March 2025

Gross Weekly Wage: €600 (in line with the cap under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012).

I find that the sum payable to the Complainant after calculation is €6787.40

CA-00072078-002: Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I find that the complaint as outlined above was well founded, and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the compensatory sum of the net amount of wages due, which is  €2218.87.

Redundancy Payments Acts 1967, Payment of Wages Act 1991.