ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056253

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Robert Doyle	Blackrock Glass Ltd

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Mr. Alan Walsh

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-00068482-001	08/01/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/03/2025

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.

I have accordingly been directed by the Director General of the Adjudication services, to hear the within complaint and I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.

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 (this is capped). 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.

The Employee must have made a claim for a redundancy payment by notice and in writing before the expiration of 52 weeks form the date of the cessation of the employment per section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended). The time limit may be extended to 104 weeks where the employee can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Adjudication Officer that the failure to bring the claim in the earlier time period was due to reasonable cause (24(2A)).

Background:

This hearing was 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 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.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in recognition of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 8th of January 2025.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant relied on the submission already set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. This reads:-

My name is Robert Doyle, my PPS NO. [Redacted]. I worked for Blackrock Glass Since the 17th of October 2017, I was informed on the 26th of August 2024 that my employment would be terminated on the 31st of August 2024 due to the closure of the business. My employer stated he did not have the money to pay my redundancy, however he would apply for state redundancy on my behalf. Over four months have now passed and to the best of knowledge my previous employer has done nothing to advance this process. I have tried contacting him on many occasions about the matter with no success. I worked for the company for 6.8 years with unbroken service, so I am entitled to redundancy but my previous employer refuses to pay. The company is no longer trading but has not appointed a receiver or gone into liquidation.

As my previous employer will not apply on my behalf or sign any forms, I feel this is my only way to resolve the issue.

The Complainant is looking for a statutory redundancy payment which is a payment scheme from the Social Insurance Fund by the Department of Social Protection to an employee where an employer is unable to make a statutory redundancy payment.

I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. This amounted to the letter of dismissal and a wage slip for 2023.

No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent entity was represented by one of the company Directors. The Respondent Representative says that the company no longer trades, but it is not in a formal liquidation process. The Respondent says he is not in a position to pay a redundancy package to the Complainant.

More worrisome is the concession made by the Respondent representative that the Employer was seemingly not making the correct PRSI contributions for the Employee for the duration of the employment. The Employer is responsible for the cost of the entire contribution in circumstances where the Employer acknowledges that the complainant’s salary was deducted of all the relevant PRSI payments

The Respondent accepts that the Complainant was made Redundant by him and is therefore entitled to a Redundancy payment.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Findings and Conclusions:

In this instance, I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

The employment started: 17th of October 2017

The employment ended: 31st of August 2024

Gross weekly wage : €1,100.00

The Complainant was made aware of the fact that 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 to 1966. The Complainant also understand that a ceiling of €600.00 applies.

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-00068482-001 - I find therefore that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

The employment started: 17th of October 2017

The employment ended: 31st of August 2024

Gross weekly wage : €1,100.00

Dated: 29/05/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: