Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Julie Greenslade

Leitrim Animal Welfare Centre Limited

Representatives

Ms. Fidelma Carron, SIPTU Workers Rights Centre

Mr. Peter Dunlea, Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00070022-001

16/03/2025

The Complainant commenced employment on 20th December 2014. The Complainant was a permanent member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €156.83.  The Complainant’s employment terminated on the grounds of redundancy on 13th October 2024.

On, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge a payment of statutory redundancy. At the hearing of the matter the Respondent accepted that this payment was due and owing, and the complaint was not contested.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 6th March 2026. This hearing was held in person at the Commission’s Sligo offices.

In circumstances whereby no dispute exists as to the relevant factual matrix, no witness evidence was called by either party.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

By submission, the Complainant stated that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 20th December 2014. Towards the end of her employment, the Complainant had average weekly earnings of €156.83. On 26th June 2024, the Complainant was informed that she was being placed on lay-off with immediate effect. Thereafter, on 13th October 2024, the Complainant served form RP9 on the Respondent. On 29th October 2024, the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was to be made redundancy within the meaning of the Act.

Thereafter, the Complainant received a payment of €2,547.62 in purported satisfaction of her statutory redundancy entitlement. The Complainant duly queried the calculation in respect to the same. In his regard, they discovered that an average weekly payment of €127.00 had been used for these calculations, whereas she determined that the correct calculation is €156.83. The Complainant also submitted that the incorrect end date was used, in that date the Complainant commenced lay-off, rather than the date on which the employment ended was imputed for these purposes. Using these calculations, the Complainant calculated her entitlement as €3,236.97, as opposed to the €2,547.62 paid by the Respondent, creating a shortfall of €689.35.

By responding submission, the Respondent accepted that position put forward by the Complainant and did not contest the complaint.

In circumstances whereby no dispute exists as to the relevant factual matrix exists as to either the fact of the Complainant’s redundancy, or her calculations regarding the same, I find that her complaint is well-founded and her appeal succeeds.

Having considered all of the information presented to me and giving appropriate weighting to the direct evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established the existence of a redundancy situation and the appeal succeeds.

I find that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information,

Date employment commenced:  20th December 2014

Date lay-off commenced:             26th June 2024

Date Employment ceased:           29th October 2024

Gross Weekly wage:                      €156.83

The entitlement is contingent on the Complainant having been in insurable employment in accordance with the Social Welfare Acts for the relevant period.

Redundancy, calculations, service, lay-off