ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057552
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pauline McMorrow | Leitrim Animal Welfare Centre Ltd. |
Representatives | Ms. Fidelma Carron SIPTU Workers Rights Centre | Mr. Peter Dunlea Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint:
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-00070024-001 | 16/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/03/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
Regarding the present complaint, the Complainant’s commencement date is a matter of dispute between the parties. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €605.90. The Complainant’s employment terminated on the grounds of redundancy on 13th October 2024.
On 16th March 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge a payment of statutory redundancy in accordance with the impleaded Act. At the hearing of the matter the Respondent accepted that this payment was due and owing, and this element of the complaint was not contested. At the hearing of the matter, it became apparent that a factual dispute existed as to the Complainant’s correct commencement date, and the hearing focused on this matter.
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 a net issue of conflict was identified, the Complainant gave evidence as regards this point only. No rebutting witness was called by the Respondent.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
|
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
By submission, the Complainant stated that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 15th March 2004. Towards the end of her employment, the Complainant had average weekly earnings of €605.90. 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. While the Respondent accepted the foregoing calculations regarding the average weekly wage and termination date, they disputed the Complainant start date, erroneously submitting that the Complainant’s employment ceased in 2009. In correspondence issued towards the end her employment, and again under oath at the hearing, the Complainant stated that she did not, at any stage resign her employment. In this respect she submitted that her correct commencement date should be 15th March 2004. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
By responding submission, the Respondent accepted that position put forward by the Complainant regarding her end date and normal weekly earnings. In relation to the Complainants’ start date, the Respondent submitted that their records demonstrated that the Complainant resigned her employment in 2009 and recommenced the engagement thereafter. In this regard, the Respondent referenced the contemporaneous P60’s which demonstrated one employment ending and another commencing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In circumstances whereby the no factual matrix exists as to either the fact of the Complainant’s redundancy, or her calculations regarding her normal weekly wages or end date, I accept the Complainant’s submissions in respect of he same. Regarding the dispute in relation to the Complainant’s correct start date, I note that the Complainant provided unambiguous evidence, under oath, to the effect that she did not resign her employment at any point during her engagement. In circumstances whereby the Respondent did not produce a witness to contradict the Complainant’s position I prefer the evidence of the Complainant in this regard. In addition to the foregoing, it is noted that the Respondent did not retain any of the documentation that might ordinarily accompany the termination of an employment. In these circumstances, I find that the Complainant’s commencement date is 15th March 2004. |
Decision:
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.
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: 15th March 2004 Date Employment ceased: 13th October 2024 Gross Weekly wage: €605.90 The entitlement is contingent on the Complainant having been in insurable employment in accordance with the Social Welfare Acts for the relevant period. |
|
Dated: 15-05-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Redundancy, calculations, service, lay-off |
