Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ivars  Kalejs

Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd  

Representatives

Ivars Kalejs Ivars Kalejs

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-00072658-001

20/06/2025

The complainant submits that he did not receive redundancy payment.

The complainant agreed that the respondent’s name should be amended to Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd.

The complainant submitted he commenced employment on 24/11/2009 and his employment ended on 17/06/2025 and he did not receive appropriate redundancy payment and his earnings were €848.25 weekly.

He submitted he was advised on the 17/02/2022 that there was no work available in the company so he looked for another job in the meantime and got hired with another company and around the 02/05/2023 he returned to Woodstown Bay Shell as he was advised there was work available. The company are refusing to pay redundancy payment from his official start date 24/11/2009. The company are telling him that they can only pay redundancy from the date when he came back which is the 02/05/2023. He submits this is unfair as when they are filling out the redundancy they are saying he had a break but this was only due to being advised by the company there is no work available. He did not know that if he worked in a different company for short period of time and was to return that the company was only going to pay from the date he came back.  He had worked for this company 14.50 years and believed redundancy should match this. He dedicated a lot of time and effort into this company and was loyal to the company for all these years.

The complainant’s evidence was he commenced employment on 24/11/2009 and when they did not have enough work he decided to leave on 17/02/2022 and he returned on 02/05/2023.  He did not recall getting a contract in 2009 and when he returned in 2023 he might have got a contract but he had only left temporarily from Feb 2022 until May 2023 and he contacted his supervisor to see if he could return and it seems unfair that he would not get redundancy.

There was no cross examination of the complainant.

The respondent submitted that the respondent’s name should be amended to Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd.

The respondent submitted that they were a family-owned business and lost much of their business with covid.  With all the embargoes that remained for China they were not able to return to their pre covid business and tried everything to save the business to keep it open and in May 2025 employees were put on short time working.  Notice of redundancy was served on 17/06/2025 as despite their best efforts they could not stay in business.  The complainant resigned in February 2022 as he said he got a better paying job and he was paid outstanding monies at that time and they were sorry to see him go as he was a valuable team member.  Over a year later he made enquiries asking if he could return and if there were vacancies and he returned and signed a new contract dated with a  start date of 16/04/2023.  There were also other contracts signed confirming pay increases given to him in 2023 and 2024.  Employees who were entitled to redundancy were paid redundancy from the social fund but the complainant was not and the respondent cannot assist him as he resigned his position and broke his service.

The evidence of Ms Barlow as that it was an unfortunate situation with the family run business when it was impacted by covid.  It was not true to say there was no work for him in Feb 2022.  He left and they were sad to lose him as he was valuable and had skills that others did not.  She had sympathy for him and they looked to see when he wanted to come back if there were positions available.

There was no cross examination of Ms Barrow.

Preliminary Issue:

The respondent and complainant agreed that the respondent’s name should be amended to Woodstown Bay Shellfish Ltd and taking into consideration that neither party is prejudiced by same I amend the name accordingly.

Substantive Issue:

The complainant submits that the respondent has failed to pay him appropriate redundancy payment.  The respondent submits that the complainant does not have the requisite service for the redundancy payment he is seeking as he left his employment for over a year.

Section 7 provides for General right to redundancy payment.

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…

It was not in dispute that the complainant originally commenced employment on 24/11/2009 and it was not in dispute that the complainant made a decision to leave his employment on 17/02/2022 to take up employment elsewhere which he confirmed in evidence.  It was furthermore not in dispute that the complainant asked the respondent if they would take him back into employment and he returned around 20/04/2023 and they needed him as he was a valuable employee and his employment ended on 17/06/2025 as the respondent could not remain in business.  I also note that the complainant signed a contract when he returned to the respondent setting out his start date as 20/04/2023 and two further contracts provided to him when pay was increased refers to this same start date of 20/04/2023.

I find 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:                          20/04/2023

Date of Termination:                                   17/06/2025

Gross Weekly Pay:                                       €848.25

This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts.

I find 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:                          20/04/2023

Date of Termination:                                   17/06/2025

Gross Weekly Pay:                                       €848.25

This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts.

Redundancy, break in service