Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sean  Lisle

Stephen Maher Plant Hire Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00070595-001

06/04/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 21 September 2017 until his employment ended on 19 April 2024.  The Complainant submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, claiming that he did not receive his redundancy payment upon termination of his employment. 

The Respondent was a plant hire company.  There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing, nor did the Respondent provide any submission or written response to the complaint.

At hearing the Complainant sought an extension to the time limit for submission of his complaint.  He stated that the Respondent had advised him and his colleagues on 16 April 2024 that the company was going into liquidation with effect from 19 April 2024.  He advised that the Respondent gave the staff forms to complete to make application for redundancy payments approximately 3 weeks later and that he returned his completed form to the Respondent a week thereafter.

He stated that he met with the Respondent on several occasions and was given assurances that matters were being addressed by the Respondent accountant.  He stated that on the last occasion when he spoke with the Respondent in early 2025 the Respondent was still providing him with assurances that he would be paid his redundancy entitlement but that he advised that as Revenue had taken a substantial amount of money from the company account, he needed to raise approximately €7K for the accountant to process the liquidation and the resulting redundancies.

The Complainant confirmed that in those circumstances he felt he had no option but the pursue his complaint to the WRC and to seek an extension of the time limit under the Act.

The Complainant confirmed that he submitted a completed RP77 (Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2007) form to the Respondent by registered post on 14 March 2025.   In addition to his complaint form, the Complainant provided the following documents:

·       a copy of the RP77 form,

·       a copy of text message from the Respondent on 19 February 2025 confirming that he needed to raise €7K in order for the accountant to commence processing the redundancies

·       a signed statement from a former colleague confirming the circumstances in which staff were made redundant

·       a copy of his last wage slip

·       a copy of a bank statement showing transfer of last wages by the Respondent to the Complainant.

The Respondent did not attend and submitted no evidence. The Adjudicator was satisfied that notice of the date, time and place of the hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.

Preliminary Issue – Time limit

I noted that the Complainant only became clear that there was an issue of concern in relation to processing his entitlement to redundancy after the Respondent advised him of the need to raise €7K in order for the accountant to commence processing the liquidation of the company and the resulting redundancies. Notwithstanding that the Complainant was made redundant from 19 April 2024 I noted that the financial difficulties preventing the processing of the redundancy was confirmed by the Respondent by text message on 19 February 2025.

I noted the Complainant request for an extension of the time limit to 2 years in accordance with section 12(b) of the Redundancy Payments Act. 

The Law

Section 12(2) (b) of the Redundancy Payments Act states “where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the Tribunal, if it is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.”

In the instant case the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent had assured him that the accountant would be contacting him in order to advance the processing of his entitlement to redundancy and having had a positive working relationship with the Respondent for 7 years it was not unreasonable for the Complainant to believe that this would happen.  I noted that it was only when the Respondent advised about the financial difficulties he had in paying the accountant to commence that process, that the Complainant became concerned that he would not receive his entitlement.

I found the Complainant’s explanation for the delay, given under oath, to be entirely plausible and I noted that but for the initial information provided by the Respondent, the process of completing the required redundancy claim forms and the continued assurances provided, the Complainant would have made his complaints within time. 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 12(2) and in all the circumstances described, I consider that there is reasonable cause to grant an extension of the time limit for submission of this complaint and I so decide.

The substantive Issue

I considered carefully the complaint made by the Complainant, his supporting documentation and his evidence at hearing.  Based on the foregoing I am satisfied that the Complainant was an employee of the Respondent from 21 September 2017 to 19 April 2024.  Based on his evidence, the signed statement of his former colleague and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept the Complainant position that his employment was terminated from 19 April 2024 due to redundancy.

I noted that the Complainant had made several attempts to engage with the Respondent in relation to his redundancy, that the Respondent continued to provide assurances that matters were being attended to but that when he was advised of the financial issues delaying the processing of the redundancy, he submitted his complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission.

Section 19-(1) of the act states that “Upon the dismissal be reason of redundancy of an employee who is entitled under this part to redundancy payment, or upon termination by such an employee in accordance with section 12(2) of his contract of employment, his employer shall pay him an amount which is referred to in this act as the lump sum.

(2) schedule 3 shall apply in relation to the lump sum”

The Respondent did not attend the hearing, did not make contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to explain its non-attendance and did not submit any evidence in relation to the complaint.  I awaited the attendance of the Respondent for in excess of 15 minutes on the day of hearing and I allowed time elapse before finalising this decision to provide for contact from the Respondent to explain its’ non-attendance. I was satisfied that notice containing the details of the date, time and place of the hearing had been properly communicated to the Respondent.

As no further communication was received at the time of finalising this decision and in the context that I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the arrangements for the hearing and in the absence of any explanation for the non-attendance, I must conclude that the within complaint is well-founded

Based on the foregoing it is clear that the Complainant has an entitlement to redundancy based on his service in employment with the Respondent and I so find. 

I have found that the Complainant’s complaint is well founded, and I so decide.

I note that the Act confirms that an employee who is eligible and who qualifies for redundancy payment is entitled to two weeks normal weekly remuneration for every year of service, plus a bonus week.

I note that the Complainant had a total of 6.58 years of service (13.16 weeks) and that he is entitled to a bonus week, bringing his total entitlement to 14.16 weeks. I further note that the Complainant was in receipt of €934 gross pay per week, however, I also note that statutory redundancy entitlement is capped at €600 per week.  On that basis I find that his entitlement to redundancy to be the amount of €8,496.00 and I direct the Respondent to pay that amount to the Complainant within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Should the Respondent confirm his inability to pay the statutory redundancy entitlement, the Respondent is instructed to co-operate with the Complainant in the provision of all necessary paperwork to enable the Complainant to claim his statutory redundancy payment from the government Redundancy Payment Scheme.

Redundancy payment