Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rafaqat  Ali

Jallal Catering Ltd. t/a Spice of India

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Attendance

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-00076208-001

10/10/2025

The Complainant was employed as a Chef by the Respondent from 1 March 2003 until 30 July 2024. His net salary on termination of employment was €459 and that he paid P.R.S.I. (wage slips were exhibited) He contends that his employment ceased by reason of redundancy and that he did not receive his statutory redundancy entitlement.

The Respondent was on notice of the complaint, and the hearing, but did not participate in the adjudication process. Mr Ejaz Mirza, an ex-manager of the Respondent restaurant attended to give evidence on the circumstances surrounding closure of the Respondent business.

The complaint is 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 that his employment terminated on 30 July 2024. The complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 10 October 2025.

The Complainant requests that his complaint be admitted within the extended period provided for under Section 24(2) of the Act, which permits an extension of up to a further twelve months where an adjudication officer is satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the complaint within the prescribed time limit.

The Complainant submitted that, at the time the Respondent ceased trading, no information or guidance was provided to him regarding her entitlements or the steps to be taken thereafter. He explained through the interpreter that he had very little English and therefore did not have a sufficient understanding of the process or of the actions required following the closure of the business. As a consequence, he experienced difficulty in accessing assistance and in submitting his claim within the statutory timeframe.

Substantive Issue:

The Complainant gave sworn evidence that his salary was €459 gross per 49-hour week as a chef. He gave further evidence that he paid a PRSI contribution including the production

The Respondent did not advance a formal case. Mr Mirza, who attended, did not cross-examine the Complainant and confirmed that he did not wish to contest the claim. He subsequently gave limited evidence that the restaurant had ceased trading due to sustained financial losses and that the business closed in July 2024.

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 establishes that, at the time his employment ended, the Complainant had a limited command of English. Consequently, he was not in a position to fully understand his statutory entitlements or the procedures relating to redundancy. In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect him to have knowledge of, or comply with, the applicable statutory time limits without access to information in a language he could understand.

Having considered the written submissions and the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that reasonable cause has been demonstrated and that the complaint should be admitted.

CA-00076208-001 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 he was made redundant under Section 7 (2)(a). I allow the Complainants appeal and I award him 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-00076208 -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, he is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis:

Date of Commencement: 1 March 2003

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: 30 July 2024

Gross Weekly Wage: €459

Redundancy Payments Act 1967.