Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kannan  Nagayindran

Sage Restaurant

Representatives

Self-represented

No appearance

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069539-001

25/02/2025

This complaint relates to a claim for redundancy payment in circumstances where the Complainant was working as a bartender in a restaurant which closed down. He worked there between 7/7/2021 and 28/07/2024, meaning he has the requisite minimum two years’ continuous service required under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

The Complainant filed his WRC complaint form on 25/02/2025, which is within the requisite 12 months’ requirement from the end of employment, as per the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Respondent, at hearing. The Adjudication Officer allowed a fifteen (15) minute grace period and then proceeded with the hearing.

As per his complaint form:

‘I am Kannan naggayindran. I lost my job last year 28/07/2024 because of my restaurant has been close down. My previous employer did not pay me any redundancy payment. I email him he said ask me to wait for a month because he don’t have fund to pay me. After a month, I called him. There is no response from him.’

At the hearing, the Complainant represented himself and gave evidence on his own behalf.

He outlined the situation he was in, which is that his place of work closed down, that he had worked there for more than two years – he was a bartender. He explained that despite pursuing it, he had not received a redundancy payment from his employer. He then filed a WRC complaint.

The Respondent did not appear but emailed the WRC PRU (post registration unit).

The Complainant sought to address some of the assertions made by the Respondent, in that correspondence. In particular, he disputed the length of notice that was given (he said it was one month, not three), and the assertion that he had been offered suitable alternative employment. It was asserted in the Respondent’s correspondence that he had been offered alternative employment in a sister company which he had declined due to ‘travel reasons and manual labour.’ The Complainant denied he had been offered a job.

He further disputed that the contract submitted was the one he had received. He outlined that he had received two contracts from his former employer, the initial one had not included the payment of public holidays and was replaced by one that did include payment for public holidays.

He said that the contract submitted by the Respondent indicated a pay rate of €15.35 per hour but that was not correct. He explained that when he started in the role, he was earning €15.50 per hour, and that he got a pay-rise after a year to €16.50 per hour.

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, allowed the Complainant, until Friday 14.11.25 to submit two payslips, which he did. The payslips show his hourly rate of earnings as €16.50 and that he was working full time.

He submitted payslips which indicated his gross weekly earnings were €660, or in excess of it.

No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Respondent.

The Respondent emailed the PRU, making a number of assertions which were denied under oath, by the Complainant. Other matters were disputed and/or contextualised.

I find that this complaint is well founded.

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

7(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

(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,

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that he was made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a). I allow the Complainants appeal and I award him statutory redundancy on the following basis Section 4(1) of the 1967  Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.”

CA-00069539-001 – Redundancy Payment: I find that this complaint is well founded.

I allow the Complainant’s appeal under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, based on the following criteria:-.

Date of Commencement: 7/7/2021

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment: 28/7/2024

The Complainant’s period of “Reckonable Service” is defined by Schedule 3 of the Act and does not include any period of absence from work due to lay off by the employer.

Gross Weekly Wage: €660 subject to the statutory cap [which is currently €600].

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

Redundancy Payment