Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Krzysztof  Kaluza

LK Food Market Limited (in liquidation)

Representatives

  Self - Represented

 No Appearance

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-00071579-001

14/05/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in Mallow, Co. Cork on 2 August 2021 as a general operative on a weekly wage of €507 gross: net €445.73. Wage slips were exhibited by the Complainant at the hearing showing also that he is showing that he had PRSI and PAYE deductions. His employment terminated on 2 October 2023 when the business ceased trading and entered liquidation. The Complainant had no knowledge as to whether the liquidation process had concluded. The complaint for a statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967–2014.

The Workplace Relations Commission has indicated to the Complainant that the complaint appears to have been presented outside the standard twelve-month time limit. This will be treated as a separate preliminary point in my decision.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing

Preliminary Issue – Out-of-Time.

The Complainant seeks that his complaint be accepted within the extended period permitted by Section 24(2) of the Act, which allows a further twelve months where an adjudication officer is satisfied that reasonable cause existed for the failure to present the complaint within the normal time.

The Complainant stated in evidence that, at the time his employment ended, he faced a serious language barrier and was unable to understand information about his employment rights, the redundancy process, or any statutory time limits. He explained that he had no access to advice in a language he could understand and did not realise that he was required to take any steps himself to secure a redundancy payment. He also told the hearing that the Respondent had informed him that the redundancy application would be made on his behalf, and for that reason he believed the matter had already been dealt with.

Substantive Issue:

Throughout his employment the Complainant worked thirty-nine hours per week. When the business closed, the Respondent told him that the statutory redundancy application would be submitted by the company on his behalf. Relying on this assurance, and given his limited English, he believed that the process had been completed as promised. He never received his statutory redundancy payment and later discovered that the employer had not taken any steps to apply for it.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing.

Preliminary Point – Out of Time:

As the complaint was submitted outside the primary twelve-month statutory time limit, the question for determination is whether the Adjudication Officer should exercise the discretion under Section 24(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 to extend time for up to a further twelve months where “reasonable cause” existed for the failure to present the complaint within the ordinary period.

Section 24(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 requires complaints to be presented within twelve months of the date of dismissal. Under Section 24(2), an Adjudication Officer may extend this period for up to a further twelve months where “reasonable cause” existed for the failure to present the complaint within the first twelve months. The test is not one of exceptional circumstances but rather one of reasonableness, assessed considering the complainant’s personal circumstances and the objective credibility of the explanation provided.

The evidence shows that the Complainant had an extremely limited command of English at the time his employment ended, which left him unable to understand his statutory rights, the redundancy process or the procedural requirements of the WRC. In those circumstances, it would not have been reasonable to expect him to appreciate or comply with statutory deadlines without access to information in a language he could understand. His difficulty was compounded by the fact that he had been told by his employer that the redundancy application would be made on his behalf. Given his language barrier and the employer’s greater familiarity with the process, it was entirely reasonable for him to rely on this assurance, and the employer’s failure to follow through led him to believe that no further action was required.

Having considered the written submissions and evidence provided, I am satisfied that reasonable cause has been established and that the complaint should be allowed to proceed.

CA-00071579 Redundancy Payment:

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 uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find he was made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a). I allow the Complainants appeal and I award him 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-00071579-001: 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: 2 August 2021

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: 2 October 2023

Gross Weekly Wage: €507

Redundancy Payments Act 1967.