Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Iwona  Olszewska

LK Food Market Limited (in liquidation)

Representatives

  Self – Represented (with WRC appointed Interpreter)

 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-00075979-001

02/10/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in Mallow, Co. Cork on 13 June 2020 as a sales assistant on a weekly wage of €199 gross: net €193 for a 19-hour week. The Complainant gave sworn evidence that she had paid PRSI contributions for the duration of her employment. The Complainant had no knowledge as to whether the liquidation process had concluded. The complaint for a statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967–2014.

I noted that the complaint as presented is outside the standard twelve-month time limit. The Complainant has submitted that I should extend the submission period for a further twelve months, due to reasonable cause.  This will be treated as a separate preliminary point in my decision.

Preliminary Issue – Out-of-Time.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence, as well as us stating on her complaint form, that her contract of employment was terminated on 6 October 2023. Her complaint form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 2 October 2025.

The Complainant seeks that her complaint be accepted within the extended period permitted by Section 24(2) of the Act, which allows a further twelve months where an adjudication officer is satisfied that reasonable cause existed for the failure to present the complaint within the normal time.

The Complainant said that at the time the Respondent closed the business no one approached her about what was to come next. As a non-native speaker she did not fully understand the process or the steps I needed to take after her employer ceased trading. This made it very difficult for her seek help or submit a claim within the required timeframe.

Substantive Issue:

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that her salary was €199 gross per 19-hour week as a sales assistant. She gave further evidence that she paid a PRSI contribution.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

Preliminary Point – Out of Time:

As the complaint was submitted outside the primary twelve-month statutory time limit, the question for determination is whether the Adjudication Officer should exercise the discretion under Section 24(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 to extend time for up to a further twelve months where “reasonable cause” existed for the failure to present the complaint within the ordinary period.

Section 24(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 requires complaints to be presented within twelve months of the date of dismissal. Under Section 24(2), an Adjudication Officer may extend this period for up to a further twelve months where “reasonable cause” existed for the failure to present the complaint within the first twelve months. The applicable test is not whether exceptional circumstances exist, but whether the explanation is reasonable, taking into account the complainant’s personal circumstances and the objective credibility of the account provided.

The evidence makes it clear that, at the time her employment ended, the Complainant had a very limited grasp of English. As a result, she was not in a position to properly understand her statutory rights, the redundancy process or the Redundancy process. In those circumstances, it would be unrealistic to expect the Complainant to know about, or comply with, statutory deadlines without access to information in a language she could understand. The Complainant also gave evidence that she felt isolated at the time, with no communication forthcoming from the Respondent.

Having considered the written submissions and evidence provided, I am satisfied that reasonable cause has been established and that the complaint should be allowed to proceed.

CA-00075979-001 Redundancy Payment:

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 she was made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a). I allow the Complainants appeal and I award her 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-00075979-001 Redundancy Payment: I allow the Complainant’s appeal and , subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, she is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis:

Date of Commencement: 13 June 2020

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: 6 October 2023

Gross Weekly Wage: €199

Redundancy Payments Act 1967.