ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054708
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Dean Kirlew | Dotser Limited |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00066601-001 | 10/10/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066601-002 | 10/10/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066601-003 | 10/10/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Evidence was given on affirmation.
All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant commenced working for the Respondent on 1 July 2024. His role was that of global sales director.
On the 7 October 2024 the Complainant received a telephone call and subsequent email from the managing director of the Complainant. He was advised that due to cash flow deficit, the business had to cease trading with immediate effect and due to this difficulty, the Respondent was unable to pay minimum notice or arrears of wages.
As search of the Companies Registration Office indicated that the company status was still normal at the date of the issue of this decision.
The company accounts filed for the year ended 31 December 2023 had the net assets of the company at a significant negative figure.
Correspondence from the WRC was sent to the Respondent's registered office as per the Companies Registration office records. This remained the registered office of the Company up to the time of the issue of this decision. I note that the notification of hearing dated 28 January 2025 from the WRC was returned by An Post to the WRC after the hearing date. It was not clear from the An Post return label as to whether the Respondent refused to accept receipt or had vacated the commercial unit at that address. Previous correspondence to the Respondent from the WRC including its letter of the 28 November 2024 notifying the Respondent of the hearing date had not been returned. On the basis of same, I am satisfied that the Respondent was served with a notification of the hearing date. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that his gross monthly pay was €9,304.17. His start date of employment was 1 July 2024 and his end date of employment was 7 October 2024. CA-00066601-001: This complaint was that he did not receive a redundancy payment. The Complainant acknowledged that he did not have two years’ service to be successful in this complaint. CA-00066601-002: This complaint was for outstanding wages for the month of September 2024. The Complainant's evidence was that he was due this payment and had made numerous enquiries for payment, but it was not forthcoming. The total amount due was €9,304.17 and this was due on 30 September 2024. CA-00066601-003: This complaint was for outstanding wages for the first week of October 2024 together with the Complainant's outstanding notice pay. The Complainant explained that he was made redundant on 7 October 2024 without notice. His last payment from the Respondent was at the end of August 2024. He was due one weeks’ notice and one week’s salary for the first week of October 2024. His contract of employment set out that his gross rate of pay would be €111,650 per annum +3.5% commission on the value of paid invoiced new licence contracts across the Respondent's product suite. His gross weekly wage was €2,147.12. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance for the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent and was not a self-employed contractor. This is evident from the contract of employment provided at the hearing and also the Complainant's direct evidence. I am satisfied with the evidence of the Complainant that he was dismissed by the Respondent for reason of redundancy on 7 October 2024. The notification of redundancy came out of the blue to him. It was conveyed initially by telephone call and was followed up by email. At that stage the Complainant had only worked three months for the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00066601-001: This complaint is not well founded. CA-00066601-002: This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €9,304.17 for his September monthly salary outstanding from the 30 September 2024. This is a gross payment. CA-00066601-003: This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €2,147.12 for his salary outstanding for the first week of October 2024 together with the Complainant's outstanding notice pay of €2,147.12. These are gross payments. |
Dated: 1st May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Redundancy. Outstanding wages. |