Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  Moloney

Lifetimecare Ltd

Representatives

Caroline Quinn

 No Appearance

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-00069802-001

06/03/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Health Care Assistant from 24 July 2017 until 15 September 2023. She earned €244.96 gross per week. The Respondent’s business ceased trading and the Complainant did not receive her statutory redundancy payment.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 24 July 2017 as Health Care Assistant. On 15 September 2023, she, along with her colleagues, was informed that the Respondent was ceasing trading. Her employment terminated on 15 September 2023.

The Complainant sought payment of her statutory redundancy entitlement; however, the Respondent failed to engage with her. The Complainant confirmed that her statutory redundancy payment remained outstanding as at the date of the hearing.

The Complainant’s gross weekly earnings were €244.96.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing arrangements. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

Preliminary Matter – Time Limits:

Although the Complainant’s employment ended on 15 September 2023, her claim for a redundancy payment was not received by the WRC until 6 March 2025.

There are statutory time limits governing the making of redundancy payment claims. The relevant provisions of section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (the “1967 Act”) are as follows:

Section 24(1):

“(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of the dismissal or the date of termination of employment – (a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or (b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or (c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.”

Section 24(2A):

“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 adjudication officer, if he or she 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 to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.”

The established test for “reasonable cause” is that formulated by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338, where the Court held:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd… The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay… The length of the delay should be taken into account… Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion… including whether the respondent has suffered prejudice and whether the claimant has a good arguable case.”

The onus is on the Complainant to identify the reason for the delay and demonstrate that this amounts to reasonable cause within the meaning of the 1967 Act.

I found the Complainant to be an honest and credible witness. In my view, the circumstances put forward by the Complainant satisfy the statutory test. The Complainant gave evidence that, following notification of her redundancy, she sought to engage with the Respondent and was led to believe that her statutory redundancy payment would be paid. She stated that statutory redundancy payments were issued to some staff in 2024 and, based on discussions with colleagues, she understood that she would be included in a subsequent round of payments. She continued to make efforts to engage with the Respondent in this regard.

In addition, the Complainant gave evidence of the very significant health difficulties which she experienced during the relevant period which I am satisfied materially impacted her capacity to pursue a claim within the statutory timeframe.

In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the delay is both explained and excused by the combination of the statements made to the Complainant and the Complainant’s serious medical condition.

Furthermore, in circumstances where the Respondent did not attend the hearing, no evidence has been presented to suggest that the delay has impaired the Respondent’s ability to respond to, or defend, the claim. I am therefore satisfied that no identifiable prejudice arises.

Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s failure to bring the claim within 52 weeks was due to reasonable cause, and that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion under section 24(2A) of the 1967 Act to extend time.

I therefore find that I have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Substantive Matter:

The Complainant provided uncontroverted evidence of her redundancy, her entitlement and that the statutory redundancy payment was not paid to her.

She gave evidence that on 15 September 2023, she and her colleagues were informed that the Respondent was ceasing trading. The Respondent subsequently ceased trading and her employment terminated on that date.

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the 1967 Act. 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 two 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 1967 Act 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 regard to the uncontroverted evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Respondent ceased trading and that the Complainant’s dismissal arose wholly or mainly by reason of redundancy within the meaning of section 7(2)(a) of the 1967 Act. I am further satisfied that the Complainant meets the qualifying conditions for a statutory redundancy payment and that no such payment has been made to her.

The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. The precise calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the appropriate authority.

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 her employer to pay a redundancy payment.  I decide that the within complaint is well founded and I decide that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the 1967 Act based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 24 July 2017

Date of Notice of Termination: 15 September 2023

Date Employment Ended: 15 September 2023

The Complainant’s gross weekly wage at the date of her redundancy was €244.96.

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