Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Brazil

Noel’S Car Wash

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-00074742-001

24/08/2025

The complainant submits that he did not receive appropriate redundancy payment.

The complainant commenced employment on 20/04/2001 and employment ended on 30/06/2025 and his gross earnings were €650 and he worked as a car washer.  He worked over 20 years with the respondent from 9am till 6pm Monday to Saturday under the car wash owner Noel Phelan, using the owner’s equipment and reported directly to him for instructions on daily operations. The complainant was required to log and submit work hours (for himself and other staff) to the accountant every week and the owner directed his start times, when to open the car wash, when to bring in or send home other staff, and other operational matters. These records confirm that he was under the owner’s control and part of the workforce, not a self-employed contractor. In the final two months, the owner asked the complainant to hand over €500 per week to continue working. This was a short-term verbal arrangement, not a transfer of ownership, and it does not erase 20+ years of employee service. Following the business closure, the owner only paid the complainant €3,000 and says his accountant claimed he was not entitled to redundancy. After 20 years, the entitlement should be significantly higher than €3,000 and the complainant is seeking full statutory redundancy payment in line with his service.

EVIDENCE OF COMPLAINANT

The evidence of the complainant was he worked there over 25 years and was told he would not be getting redundancy and there had been a contract of employment and 3 weeks before the closure he found out the business was closing down as the owner was having legal difficulties and there were 3 employees.  No pay slips were received unless he asked for them and he was getting €430 nett and the owner was taking care of the tax and he was invited to the respondent’s house who said there would not be redundancy and was given €3,200 and they were put into his account.

CROSS EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT

Under cross examination he said the proof of payment was in the bank and there was no proof of 2 payments of €500 and his gross was €430 and said there was a further payment of €1,000 cash as well as the €3,200 payment to the bank account.

It was submitted that that the business had to close and it was not in dispute that it closed and the complainant would have known about the closure and it was the subject of a court order of 26/03/2025 and there was a payment of €3,000 made to the complainant and the complainant was supposed to open a new car wash and the respondent handed over machinery when the business closed and whenever the complainant requested pay slips they were provided.

EVIDENCE OF MR NOEL PHELAN OWNER

Evidence of Mr Phelan was that the complainant’s gross and nett was €430 and as the owner he was forced to shut the business and had fought for years to keep it open and confirmed that the complainant did not get all his statutory and there was no money left.  There was a payment of €3,200 made into the bank and a payment of €1,500 cash on 10/06/2025 and €1,500 cash on 24/07/2025 and €1,000 cash on 30/05/2025.  The witness said he was 71 and could not pay any more and there was no contract of employment.  Machinery was given to the complainant in lieu of money and the complainant took the machinery.

There was no cross examination of Mr Phelan.

The complainant submits that he did not get the full redundancy payment owed and the respondent submits that he paid monies to the complainant.

Under s7(1)

…An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(2) 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…

It was not in dispute that the business closed and it was not in dispute that the complainant had been employed from 20/04/2001 until 30/06/2025.  It was disputed what monies had been paid to the complainant and the purpose of any such payments made.  It was not in dispute that the complainant received €430 nett weekly and that the respondent paid the complainant’s tax.  It would appear based on all the evidence that the most credible gross wages paid to the complainant was €650 gross and while complainant and respondent are in conflict regarding how much was actually paid for the purpose of redundancy I find it is more credible that the respondent paid the complainant €4,200 for the purpose of redundancy payment.  I find therefore, taking into consideration all the submissions and evidence, that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:

Date of Commencement:                         20/04/2001

Date of Termination:                                 30/06/2025

Gross Weekly Pay:                                       €650

This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts and should be less redundancy totalling €4,200 gross paid already.

I find therefore, taking into consideration all the submissions and evidence, that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and is allowed and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:

Date of Commencement:                         20/04/2001

Date of Termination:                                 30/06/2025

Gross Weekly Pay:                                       €650

This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts and should be less redundancy totalling €4,200 gross paid already.

Redundancy payment