ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056749
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brid Heelan | Keith Ryan |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00069081-001 | 05/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 as amendedfollowing the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
At the adjudication hearing, the parties were advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases, decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text.
The parties were also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. All participants who gave evidence were sworn in. Both parties were offered the opportunity to cross-examine the evidence.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
The Complainant was self-represented.
The Respondent was self-represented.
Background:
The Complainant referred her claim to the Director General of the WRC on 5 February 2025 alleging that she did not receive any redundancy payment. The Respondent did not dispute the claim. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that she commenced her employment with the Respondent on 15 January 2011. Her employment was terminated on 14 August 2024 due to redundancy. She was paid €315 gross per week. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not contest the Complainant’s claim. The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant’s position was made redundant but she did not receive any redundancy payment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended) and Regulations made thereunder provide that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must (1) have at least two years’ continuous service, excluding any period of employment with that employer before the age of 16 years (2) be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts, (3) be over the age of 16 and (4) have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation. The relevant portion of Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides 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, Section 19 of the same Act provides for the payment of a lump sum by the employer as follows: 19(1) Upon the dismissal by reason of redundancy of an employee who is entitled under this Part to redundancy payment, or where by virtue of Section 12 an employee becomes entitled to redundancy payment, his employer shall pay to 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. S.I. No. 695/2004 - Redundancy Payments (Lump Sum) Regulations 2004 sets out the current rates. There was no dispute that the Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 15 January 2011. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 14 August 2024 due to the Respondent ceasing trading. It was not disputed that the Complainant was paid €315 gross per week at the time of the termination of her employment. The Respondent conceded that, while it did not dispute the Complainant’s entitlement to a redundancy lump sum, it did not pay same. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 as amended 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. I decide that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payment Acts based on the following criteria: Date of commencement: 15 January 2011 Date of termination: 14 August 2024 Gross weekly remuneration: €315 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 23/06/2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Redundancy - |