Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Efren  Arias Vazquez

 Tradeplayer Limited trading as PlayON

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Killian Jones

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

CA-00069871-001

10/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

CA-00069871-002

10/03/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

CA-00069871-003

10/03/2025

The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced on the 9th April 2018 and it was terminated by reason of redundancy on the 20th December 2024. He earned €1,250.00 gross per week. The Complainant referred the within complaints to the WRC on the 10th March 2025.

On the 20th December 2024 the Complainant was removed from payroll. On the 23rd December 2024 the Complainant was verbally informed by the Respondent’s Director and Chief Executive Officer that the Respondent was ceasing operations and that his employment was terminated immediately. On the 28th December 2024 the Complainant was furnished with a letter of the same date which stated that “Tradeplayer Limited ceased trading on 20th December 2024. As a result, it is with deep regret that I inform you that you have been made redundant effective from 20th December 2024. I would like to sincerely thank you for all of your efforts with the company.”

The Complainant’s employment ended on the 20th December 2024. He confirmed that his statutory redundancy payment and his four weeks’ notice pay remained outstanding as at the date of the hearing. The Complainant earned €1,250.00 gross per week.

The Respondent’s Director and Chief Executive Officer detailed the financial position of the Respondent and the circumstances giving rise to the termination of the Complainant’s employment by reason of redundancy. He confirmed that there was no dispute that the monies claimed by the Complainant under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended) and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 were owed to him but stated that the Respondent did not have the funds to discharge what was owed.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties at the hearing.

CA-00069871-001

This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

CA-00069871-002

The Complainant provided evidence of his redundancy, evidence of his calculated entitlement and evidence in support of his contention that the statutory redundancy payment was never made to him. He submitted a letter dated the 28th December 2024 wherein he was informed that the Respondent ceased trading on the 20th December 2024 and as a result he was made redundant effective from the 20th December 2024.

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended).  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)    have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)    be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)    be over the age of 16;

(4)    have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)    not have received a lump sum payment.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) states:

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…

Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation falls to be considered under 7(2)(a) above.  I am satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended).  I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of his redundancy as at the date of hearing. The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department.

CA-00069871-003: Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

Section 4(2)(c) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that minimum notice be given by an employer to terminate the contract of his employee -

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

The Complainant advised the hearing that he was employed by the Respondent from the 9th April 2018 to the 20th December 2024. The Respondent did not dispute the Complainant’s complaint. I am satisfied that the Complainant in this case is entitled to 4 weeks’ notice pay. I am also satisfied from the evidence adduced that the Complainant did not receive his entitlement of 4 weeks’ notice or payment in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I find this complaint to be well founded.

CA-00069871-001

This complaint was withdrawn at the hearing.

CA-00069871-002

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter my decision is to allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his employer to pay a redundancy payment.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act 1967 (as amended) based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 9th April 2018

Date Employment Ended: 20th December 2024

Gross Weekly Wage: €1,250. This figure is capped at the maximum figure of €600 as his weekly wage exceeded that sum.

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

CA-00069871-003

I decide that this complaint is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €5,000 representing 4 weeks’ wages.