Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joseph  O’Brien

Circuit Electric

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-00073000-001

01/07/2025

The Complainant appeared in person and relied upon submissions.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

It was submitted by the Complainant that he was employed by the Respondent, Circuit Electric, from 30 March 2016 until 23 August 2023, initially as an electrician and later as a site manager. His duties included overseeing daily site operations, coordinating with main contractors, electricians, apprentices and subcontractors, ensuring works were carried out safely and to the required standard, managing materials and schedules, and reporting directly to the company owner, Mr Thomas Clarke. The Complainant stated that he consistently worked to ensure projects were completed on time and within budget.

It was submitted that throughout his employment all communication and management decisions came directly from Mr Clarke, as there was no formal office or administrative structure within the company. The Complainant stated that he enjoyed working with Circuit Electric and maintained a positive working and personal relationship with Mr Clarke and other staff for most of his employment.

According to the Complainant, difficulties began to arise towards the latter period of his employment. He submitted that communication from Mr Clarke became increasingly infrequent and wages began arriving late from week to week. The Complainant further submitted that subcontractors and other staff also stopped attending projects due to not being paid, which made it extremely difficult to carry out work and meet project deadlines.

It was further submitted that in the weeks leading up to the end of his employment, senior staff members, including the Complainant, requested two meetings with Mr Clarke to discuss the company’s deteriorating situation. At these meetings, the Complainant stated that staff expressed serious concerns regarding the management of the company and offered suggestions as to how improvements could be made. He submitted that Mr Clarke assured staff he had no intention of ceasing trading and encouraged them to “stick together.” The Complainant stated that at the second meeting he was offered a pay increase, which he accepted due to his loyalty and willingness to help the company recover.

However, the Complainant submitted that the situation did not improve. Instead, it worsened in the weeks after these meetings. Communication from Mr Clarke became almost non‑existent, and working conditions were described as increasingly difficult. The Complainant submitted that main contractors on various projects began bringing in other electrical contractors to carry out work ordinarily undertaken by the Respondent. He stated that this created an uncomfortable working environment.

The Complainant gave evidence regarding one particular project where he was acting as site manager. He stated that the main contractor requested weekly records of hours worked by Respondent employees. He found this unusual and was later informed by senior staff of the main contractor that they themselves were providing the funds to pay the wages of Circuit Electric Respondent’s employees. The Complainant submitted that at this point he felt the company was no longer functioning in any meaningful way.

It was submitted that when the Complainant’s employment effectively ended, he received no notice, no redundancy documentation, and no information regarding his rights. The Complainant stated that for some time he was not aware that he had an entitlement to claim redundancy under the relevant legislation hence the reasons for the delay in submitting his claim.

After waiting for a reasonable period of time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Every effort was made to communicate with the Respondent via email, registered post and telephone.

Therefore, I am satisfied the Respondent was on notice of the complaint.

The first question to decide on is the jurisdictional issue where the Complainant stated his employment terminated on 18 August 2023 with the Workplace Relations Commission receiving his complaint form on 1 July 2025.

The time limit for referring complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission is set out in Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

Section 24 states:

“24.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an employee shall not be entitled to a lump sum unless before the end of the period of 52 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment—

(a) the payment has been agreed and paid, or

(b) the employee has made a claim for the payment by notice in writing given to the employer, or

(c) a question as to the right of the employee to the payment, or as to the amount of the payment, has been referred to the Director General under section 39.”

While it is understandable that the Complainant sought to address the matter with Mr. Clarke directly before resorting to a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. While he may not have been aware of the legislation this is not sufficient to amount to a “reasonable cause” to allow for the extension of the time particular where the complaint was referred 11 months later.

For this reason, I am declining jurisdiction in this complaint.

I am declining jurisdiction in this complaint.