ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053994

Parties:

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Leonardo Ramalhao Paes

Fillet Ventures Limited

trading as Honey Bun Bakery

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-00065979-001	13/09/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/07/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

Pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967 (as amended) it is directed that the manner of hearing prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply to any question, dispute, complaint or appeal referred to the Director General under the Redundancy Payments Acts of 1967 – 2014.

Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an eligible employee who is found to be redundant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for every year of service (per Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967). The Acts provide for a payment of two weeks gross pay for each year of service. A further bonus week is added to this. An eligible employee is one with 104 weeks of continuous employment with an employer and whose position has ceased to exist. The calculation of

Gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. Gross pay is the current normal weekly pay including average regular overtime and benefits-in-kind and before tax and PRSI deductions. A Redundancy payment is generally tax free.

A complainant must be able to show a minimum two years (104 weeks) of service in the employment. The Complainant herein qualifies.

Responsibility to pay Statutory Redundancy rests with the Employer. Where an employer can prove to the satisfaction of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection that it is unable to pay Statutory Redundancy to an eligible applicant, the Department will make payments directly to that employee and may seek to recover as against the Employer independently. Such claims must be submitted on form RP50 which may be signed by both employer and employee (to be accompanied with a Statement of Affairs).

In the event that an Employer refuses to engage with an employee in this way, it is open to the employee to bring an appropriate complaint before the Workplace Relations Commission as set out in Section 38(15) of the 1967 Act.

Background:

This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.

The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 13th of September 2024 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 20th of May 2025 - and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form.

From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that he is entitled to a redundancy payment in circumstances where his Employer went into liquidation.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 20th of May 2025 - and sent by both registered post and ordinary post to the address provided by the Complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

Neither party attended the hearing even though both parties were communicated with prior to the hearing date with a notification of the proposed time, date and venue.

I do note that the Respondent has gone into a formal liquidation, and it may well be that the Liquidator is not on notice. However, in circumstances where the Complainant has not presented to make his case, I am not prepared to make further inquiries in this regard.

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.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00065979-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not attend to give evidence substantiating his claim.

Dated: 6th August 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: