Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Arkadiusz  Kuzio

Chambers Refrigeration Ltd.  [amended] 

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at hearing. 

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-00067275-001

09/11/2024

The Complainant claims entitlement to a statutory lump sum payment arising from the termination of his employment with the Respondent.  This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 09/11/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 30/05/2025. 

The Complainant submits he commenced employment with the Respondent on 16/04/2017 and this commencement date is supported by the provision of historic bank statements showing credit transfers from the Respondent.      

The Complainant at all material times was employed by the Respondent as a HGV driver.  The Complainant worked 60 hours per week on average for which he was paid on average €1,000.00 net pay per week.  The Complainant’s employment ended on 20/09/2024. 

This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated and he has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to his former role.  The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where his employment ended on 20/09/2024 and he has processed his claim to the WRC on 09/11/2024. 

Having waited a reasonable period of the time on the day of hearing of this matter, namely 30/05/2025 there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.  I am satisfied the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing by correspondence from the WRC to the registered address of the Respondent as set out on the CRO website from which the letter of notification was returned.   

CA-00067275-001

The Complainant submits he was employed by the Respondent as a HGV driver since 16/04/2017.    The Respondent business closed on 20/09/2024 and has not reopened since.  The Complainant submits he has heard nothing from the Respondent and confirmed he has received no redundancy payment. 

CA-00067275-001

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  I note the Respondent has not engaged with the WRC or filed any written submissions or documentation.  In the circumstances no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

In circumstances where I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly served with notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication hearing and having waited some time to accommodate a late arrival and where I formally opened and closed the adjudication hearing on the 30/05/2025 I will proceed to set out hereunder my findings and conclusions.

CA-00067275-001

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation exhibited at hearing and the uncontested oral evidence adduced by the Complainant at hearing on oath. 

The Relevant Law:

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)   have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)   be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)   be over the age of 16;

(4)   have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)   not have received a lump sum payment. 

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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…

Having heard and carefully considered the uncontested evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 7(2)(a) set out above.  The business appears to have ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed, and his work has ceased.  I am satisfied the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014. 

I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of his redundancy at the date of hearing. 

In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded.  The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

Commencement date: 16/04/2017

End of employment:  20/09/2024

Net weekly pay:  €1,000.00

The Complainant was made aware of the fact than any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966.  The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department. 

CA-00067275-001

I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his employer to pay a redundancy.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria:

Commencement date:  16/04/2017

End of employment:  20/09/2024

Net weekly pay:  €1,000.00

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. 

No appearance by Respondent;