Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sean  De Paor

Darren Walsh  T/ A D&D Landscaping

Representatives

Appeared In Person  

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

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-00079376-001

10/01/2026

On 10 January 2026, the Complainant a Landscape Gardener and Lay Litigant submitted a claim for a lump sum payment in redundancy from his employer, Darren Walshe.

On that day, he notified the WRC that he had worked for the Respondent:

12 June 2023 to 14 December 2025, the latter being the date he attributed to the circumstances of Redundancy.

This notification of claim was served on the Respondent on 23 January 2026.

The Respondent appears to have responded to this by seeking Mediation.

I have incorporated the WRC generated letter of February 20, 2026, sent to him in response.

DearDarren Walsh,

I refer to previous correspondence regarding this matter.

I wish to acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence seeking mediation which has been forwarded to this office for reply.

Unfortunately, we cannot mediate in respect of single redundancy employment complaints due to the need for an Adjudication Officer’s formal decision to allow the Complainant to make a Redundancy claim with the Department of Social Protection if the employer does not make the payment.

Parties can engage directly in advance of the Adjudication hearing to see if the matter can be resolved locally.

I received carriage of this case mid-April 2026, when parties were invited to hearing scheduled for June 12, 2026.

In absence of the requested written submission, on 29 May 2026, I wrote to both parties.

DearSean De Paor,

I am the Adjudicator assigned to hear your case on June 12 next in Cork.

I would be grateful if you could forward your completed written submission in the case complete with any relevant documentation such as a contract of employment, sample of pay slips, prsi records covering any absences. I would also welcome sight of any efforts made to secure the redundancy payment prior to submission to the WRC.

Once received, this will be shared with your former employer for his response.

I look forward to meeting the parties at hearing.

The Complainant filed his submission on 3 June 2026, which was shared with the Respondent.

I have not received any defense in this case as the Respondent did not file a submission or attend the scheduled hearing.

It is noted that notification of Redundancy hearings is sent registered post and the notification letters must have been received as they were not returned to the WRC.

The Complainant represented himself at hearing and took the oath to accompany his evidence at hearing.

I have waited the requisite 5 days and there has been no contact from the Respondent.

 I will now move to decision in the case.

The Complainant commenced working as a Landscape Gardener on 12 June 2023 on a full-time basis, in receipt of €595.81 gross per week.

He sustained a workplace accident in April 2025 and proceeded on continuous sick leave to address the life changes that resulted.

Towards year end, 2025, the Respondent declared that he was not pursuing his company status into 2026 and expected to secure direct employment himself. He said he would have to leave the complainant go.

A series of inter party texts/ what’s apps were submitted which carried:

1 Notification of the complainant’s cessation of employment on Revenue web site.

2 The Complainants subsequent exploration of a lump sum payment in redundancy

3 The Respondents refusal to pay redundancy on advice of his Accountant, no reasons given.

4 The Complainants recourse to an Advisory service and submission of RP 77 dated 19 December 2026 to the Respondents address, as requested by him.

5 In the absence of progress, the Complainant referred the case to the WRC on January 10, 2026.

Evidence of the Complainant, under oath.

The Complainant outlined that he had worked continuously for the Respondent from 12 June 2023 for €595.81 per week, full time.

He told the hearing that he sustained a workplace accident in April 2025, which prompted an emergency surgery and consequent sick leave.

He described an historical positive working relationship with the respondent, who forwarded him his illness benefit, which he had received from DSP, but generously topped up to normal pay until July / August 2025, when he said, it was no longer feasible.

The Complainant engaged in a reconciliation of service exercise with the UK HMRC and continued on Injury/ illness benefit from DSP. This concluded into December 2025.

In or around late November 2025, he visited the respondent at a shed area, he used for work purposes. He informed the complainant that he intended to cease his operational licence in January 2026 and would not be continuing his employment.

The Complainant received notification of a cessation date from Revenue.

He requested a lump sum payment in redundancy.

On 18 December 2025, the Redundancy notified him that

“I was just speaking to my Accountant there. He said there isn’t any redundancy to be paid “.

The Complainant sought advice from an Advisory service, who advised compilation and submission of RP 77 in pursuit of the lump sum payment in Redundancy.

He scanned and posted this form the next day, December, 119, 2026, but had not secured the requested payment.

The Complainant had calculated the lump sum due and had sent a screen shot to the Respondent.

The Complainant confirmed that parallel proceedings on personal injury were underway which had not phased the respondent who had explained he had insurance.

The Complainant concluded that he was disappointed in the turn of events as the working relationship had been mutually beneficial. He simply wished to chase his redundancy payment.

In the absence of cross examination by the respondent, I asked the complainant to clarify where he saw his entitlement within the parameters of Section 7(2) of the Act.?

The Complainant clarified that the circumstances he experienced fell within the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

He had agreed with the Respondent that annual leave could be off set against the “top up “payment he had received.

He did not receive payment for notice.

The Complainant is seeking a lump sum payment in redundancy.

There has been no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing.

The Respondent has not filed a defence to the claim for a payment in redundancy.

I have been requested to make a decision in this claim for a lump sum payment in Redundancy. In reaching this decision, I have done all in my power to consider both parties stated positions on the claim. I have read all documents received. I have considered the evidence adduced at hearing.

It is always disappointing when both parties are not present at hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the hearing and had received all documentation submitted by the Complainant.

He has not shared a response. The claim has not been contested.

Employment is based on a mutual trust and confidence, where both parties are meant to follow specific rules at beginning through a statement of terms of employment and at the closure, be it resignation, dismissal or retirement.

I have very little material documents which bind these parties in employment outside of a requested pay slip, which confirms the complainants’ gross earnings as reflected on his complaint form.

The Complainant gave sworn evidence, which was uncontested.

I found him a credible witness, with a clear residual loyalty towards the Respondent.

He came to hearing to secure a statutory lump sum in redundancy.

This case would have benefitted from the Respondent attendance at hearing in the company of his Advisor. I have no knowledge of why the request for a lump sum payment in redundancy was refused.

It is my understanding that an Accountant is professionally obliged to provide a cogent and transparent reason for a decision just as I am obliged to give reasons for my decisions. I am at a loss in seeking to read the mind of absentees from a statutory hearing, with no explanation for this absence.

I would have liked to have been able to review and consider an opposing viewpoint.

I am left to apply the law to the facts as they were presented to me by the complainant.

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended provides for a payment of a lump sum payment in Redundancy

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

[(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,

Schedule 3 at Section 5(a) Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 protects continuity of service through sick leave.

I accept the Complainant evidence that he was informed that his employment was to end from November 28, 2025, onwards. This manifested as a termination on Revenue through the Respondents what’s app from that date.

What followed was a vacuum in engagement and a disregard for the RP 77 served manually and by post on 19 December 2025.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that he was correct in his impression that his employment had been terminated through redundancy by the Respondent on 28 November 2025, by notification to Revenue.

By that date, he had secured in excess of 104 weeks continuous service, unbroken by his sick leave and fell for consideration for the application of the provisions of Section 7(2) of the Act on access to a Lump sum in redundancy by operation of law.

I find that he is entitled to that payment by operation of Section 7(2) (a) and (c) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

Section 4 (a) allows me to reflect the two weeks’ notice allowable to the Complainant.

4A. Notwithstanding anything in paragraph 4 (and anything in clause (b) of the definition of “date of dismissal” in section 2), the period of notice due to an employee under section 4 (2) (a) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, but not given by the employer, shall, where the Tribunal so orders, be allowed as continuous service for redundancy purposes where, but for the failure of the employer to comply with the provisions of that Act, the employee would have qualified for redundancy payment.

I find that the Complainant was dismissed via Redundancy on 12 December 2025.

Redundancy is meant to reflect change and be impersonal. St Ledger v Frontline Distributors ltd [1995] ELR 160, refers.

The Claim is well founded.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I have found the claim to be well founded. The Complainant was dismissed through redundancy.

I find that the complainant is entitled to receive a lump sum payment in redundancy from the respondent.

I order payment of that payment on the following basis.

Date of Commencement of Employment: 12 June 2023.

Date Of Termination:  12 December 2025, inclusive of notice.

No breaks in service:

Weekly wage: € 595.81. gross.

This payment is based on the complainant being in insurable employment.

Claim for lump sum payment in Redundancy set against the backdrop of sick leave.