ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058037
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Martin Ryan | Carlow, Kilkenny & South Tipperary Rural Transport Company Limited By Guarantee trading as Ring A Link |
Representatives |
| Annalee Brazel Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
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-00070472-001 | 01/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/10/2025
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. 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote hearing was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that no party was prejudiced by having this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my function, and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.
In response to 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), I can confirm that the within hearing was open to the public so as to better demonstrate transparency in the administration of Justice. I have additionally informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and in the event that there is a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to a complaint then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Oath/Affirmation as appropriate. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the complaint as per his workplace relations complaint form which stated: I began working for Rink a link in March 2022 on a part time 2 days a week basis, occasionally doing extra hours to cover sick leave and holidays. In early March 2025 I became aware that my job would be ceasing as the company were losing the contract for the bus service I worked on. I subsequently received a letter from the company around mid March stating that my "employment would be ceasing on March 28th 2025". I then emailed the manager (Jackie Meally) enquiring about my redundancy payment. I received no reply. I again emailed him a few days later with the same enquiry. I then received a letter from the company stating " in their opinion " that the company were not obliged to pay me any redundancy. This is why I am making this application for a redundancy payment which I feel according to the law I am entitled to. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The Evidence adduced by the complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent Representative. The Complainant alleges that he is entitled to be paid a redundancy payment in circumstances where his role was made redundant by reason of the loss of a third-party contract under a tendering process. 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 Peninsula HR Services. A number of witnesses also attended to set out the company position. These were AP – the Chairperson and BD – the relevant Manager. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. The Respondent had initially understood that a transfer of undertaking might have taken place when the Respondent lost a Contract for the provision of service, and a competitor took up the said Contract for the provision of service. The Respondent was not, however, in a position to provide evidence of this ever having been a workplace situation to which the law around the Transfer of Undertaking would apply. Ultimately the Respondent accepted that there was no reason to believe that this was a transfer of undertaking. The Respondent conceded therefore that it was a Redundancy situation. 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:
On foot of the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s role was made redundant when the Respondent lost the Contract for Service it had been operating and in respect of which the Complainant had been employed as part time driver. I understand that this Contract for the provision of a transport service was lost in a tendering process. I understand that a competitor of the Respondent took over the operation of the said Contract foe services. I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: The employment started: 30th of June 2022 The employment ended: 28th of March 2025 Gross weekly wage : €225.00 A statutory redundancy payment under the scheme is a payment from the Social Insurance Fund by the Department of Social Protection to an employee where an employer is unable or has refused to make a statutory redundancy payment. This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
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-00070472-001 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: 30th of June 2022 The employment ended: 28th of March 2025 Gross weekly wage : €225.00 |
Dated: 25th November 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|