Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Francis Declan  Radmall

Randridge International

Representatives

  N/A

Roberta Urbon Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00065280-001

08/08/2024

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

CA-00065280-002

08/08/2024

The Complainant began his employment with the Respondent as the Group Quality Assurance/Quality Control Manager on 19 April 2022. He stated that although he was dismissed by reason on 5 July 2024, he did not receive his statutory redundancy entitlements. He also stated that he was owed outstanding wages, his notice pay as well as his accrued holidays.

Please see the findings and conclusions below.

Please see the findings and conclusions below.

CA-00065280-001:

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 have been 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 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.

(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.”

FINDINGS:

As both the Complainant and the Respondent accepted that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy, I find that he is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.

CA-00065280-002:

This complaint was referred to the WRC on 8 August 2024.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides as follows in respect of time limits: 

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of twelve months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than six months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.” 

It is a matter for the Complainant to establish that there is reasonable cause for the delay.

The Complainant in this case stated that he was not aware of the time limits because he lives outside of the jurisdiction.  I am satisfied however that the legal principle ignorantia juris non excusat (“ignorance of the law excuses not”) applies in this case and the fact that he lives outside of Ireland cannot be accepted as excusing a failure to comply with a statutory time limit.

I find therefore that the cognisable period in respect of this complaint is the six-month period from 9 February 2024 to 8 August 2024. 

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a)     any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise,

(b)     any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

Provided however that the following payments shall not be regarded as wages for the purposes of this definition:

(i) any payment in respect of expenses incurred by the employee in carrying out his employment,

(ii) any payment by way of a pension, allowance or gratuity in connection with the death, or the retirement or resignation from his employment, of the employee or as compensation for loss of office,

(iii) any payment referable to the employee's redundancy,

(iv) any payment to the employee otherwise than in his capacity as an employee,

(v) any payment in kind or benefit in kind,

(vi) any payment by way of tips or gratuities.

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. 

SALARY PAYMENTS

The Complainant stated that there were deductions made from his salary payments throughout the cognisable period. Prior to examining each particular month, I noted that there was a dispute between the parties over both the amount of his gross monthly salary and whether addendum payments constituted wages under the Act.

(i)                  The gross monthly salary

Following the completion of the Complainant’s previous fixed term contract of employment, he stated that a new contract of employment was issued to him effective 1 June 2023 wherein he was entitled to a gross monthly salary of €4,666.66, which was €333.33 per month more than he had earned in respect of his previous contract. The Respondent stated that they did not pay the increased salary however because this new contract was not signed by the Complainant.

Given that there was no evidence presented to suggest that the Complainant signed the new contract of employment, I find that he was not entitled to the pay increase of €333.33 stipulated therein and that the gross monthly salary properly payable to him every month was therefore €4,333.33.

(ii)                The addendum payments:

In relation to this case, I am not satisfied that the monthly addendum payment of €2,500 per month meets the definition of wages under Act, as set out in the legislation cited above, given that it was paid tax free and therefore constitutes a form of expenses which is not regarded as wages.

April salary

As the Complainant’s April salary was not paid to him until 17 May 2024, I find that any alleged contravention of the Act in respect of that month’s salary falls within the cognisable period.

As set out above, I have found that Complainant was not entitled to either the monthly addendum payment of €2,500 or the additional payment of €333.33 which he alleged were both deducted from his pay in April.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there were no illegal deductions made from the Complainant’s salary in April 2024 and that he was paid all of the wages “properly payable” to him in respect of the month. 

May salary

As the Complainant’s May salary was not paid to him until 2 July 2024, I find that any alleged contravention of the Act in respect of that month’s salary falls within the cognisable period.

As set out above, I have found that Complainant was not entitled to either the monthly addendum payment of €2,500 or the additional payment of €333.33 which he alleged were both deducted from his pay in May.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there were no illegal deductions made from the Complainant’s salary in May 2024 and that he was paid all of the wages “properly payable” to him in respect of the month.

June salary

As the Complainant’s June salary was not paid to him until 11 July and 18 July 2024, I find that any alleged contravention of the Act in respect of that month’s salary falls within the cognisable period.

Firstly, as set out above, I have found that Complainant was not entitled to either the monthly addendum payment of €2,500 or the additional payment of €333.33 which he alleged were both deducted from his pay in May.

I also noted that although the Complainant’s payslip dated 28 June 2024 shows a net amount payable for the month of €3,344.20, he was only paid €1,337.68 net in respect of June 2024.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there are additional wages “properly payable” to the Complainant in the amount of €2,006.52 net in respect of June 2024.

July salary

As the Complainant’s July salary was not paid to him, and he was given notice of his termination on 5 July 2024, I find that any alleged contravention of the Act falls in respect of that month’s salary within the cognisable period.

Firstly, as set out above, I have found that Complainant was not entitled to any addendum payment in respect of the period from 1 July 2024 to 5 July 2024.

It was accepted by both sides that the Complainant had not been paid €753.62 gross by way of wages in respect of his July salary.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there are wages “properly payable” to the Complainant in the amount of €753.62 gross in respect of July 2024

NOTICE PAY

It was accepted by both parties that the Complainant did not receive one month’s notice pay that he was contractually entitled to.

As set out above, I have found that Complainant was not entitled to either the addendum payment of €2,500 or the additional payment of €333.33 which he alleged were both deducted from his notice pay.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there are wages “properly payable” to the Complainant in the amount of €4,333.33 gross in respect of the notice payment that he did not receive.

HOLIDAY PAY

It was accepted by both parties that the Complainant did not receive holiday pay in the amount of €1,132 gross that he was contractually entitled to.

Considering the foregoing, I find that there are wages “properly payable” to the Complainant in the amount of €1,132 gross in respect of the outstanding holiday pay that he did not receive.

CA-00065280-001:

For the reasons set out above, I allow the Complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria: 

-          Date of commencement:                19 April 2022

-          Date of Notice of Termination:       5 July 2024

-          Date of termination:                         4 August 2024

-          Gross weekly wage:                          € 1,000

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

CA-00065280-002:

I find that the complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and that the Complainant is due the following:

(i)                  A net payment of €2,006.52. This is a net payment and is not subject to taxation

(ii)                An additional gross payment of €6,218.95. This gross payment is subject to taxation and

the normal statutory deductions.