Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Andrew  Coade

Order Up Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

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-00078588-001

14/12/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Chef from 1 February 2021 to 12 December 2024 and earned €720 per week. He stated that he was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

The Complainant stated that he did not receive a statutory redundancy payment following the closure of the premises where he worked on 12 December 2024.

The Respondent emailed the WRC on 26 August 2026 and indicated that they would not be attending the hearing.

Preliminary Matter – Time Limits:

Although the Complainant’s employment ended on 12 December 2024, his claim for a redundancy payment was not received by the Workplace Relations Commission until 14 December 2025.

There are statutory time limits governing the making of redundancy payment claims. The relevant provisions of section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (the “1967 Act”) are as follows:

Section 24(1):

“(1) 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 the 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.”

Section 24(2A):

“Where an employee who fails to make a claim for a lump sum within the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (1) (as amended) makes such a claim before the end of the period of 104 weeks beginning on the date of dismissal or the date of termination of employment, the adjudication officer, if he or she is satisfied that the employee would have been entitled to the lump sum and that the failure was due to a reasonable cause, may declare the employee to be entitled to the lump sum and the employee shall thereupon become so entitled.”

The established test for “reasonable cause” is that formulated by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338, where the Court held:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd……The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay… The length of the delay should be taken into account… Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion… including whether the respondent has suffered prejudice and whether theclaimant has a good arguable case.”

The onus is on the Complainant to identify the reason for the delay and demonstrate that this amounts to reasonable cause within the meaning of the 1967 Act.

In this case, the Complainant stated that he remained in contact with the Respondent following notification of his redundancy and was informed repeatedly that he would receive his redundancy entitlements.

He was not informed until 14 December 2025 that the Respondent was not in a position to either pay his redundancy or to appoint a liquidator.  On the very day he learned this information, the Complainant filed a complaint with the WRC.

Assessment of Reasonable Cause

In my view, the circumstances put forward by the Complainant satisfy the statutory test given that there is a clear causal link between the assurances given by the Respondent and the delay in bringing the claim. Until 14 December 2025, the Complainant had no reason to believe that he needed to file a statutory claim. The delay resulted directly from the Respondent’s representations that his redundancy entitlements would be paid.

Considering the foregoing, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s failure to bring the claim within 52 weeks was due to reasonable cause, and that it is appropriate to exercise my discretion under section 24(2A) of the 1967 Act to extend time. Accordingly, I find that I have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

Substantive Matter:

The Redundancy Payments Acts state 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,…”

Analysis:

It was not disputed that the Respondent ceased operations at the location where the Complainant was employed as a result of which he was dismissed.

In light of his uncontested evidence above, I find that the conditions for redundancy have been met under the legislation, and accordingly, I allow the Complainant’s appeal.

I allow the Complainant’s appeal for the reasons set out above and find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2012 based on the following criteria: 

-          Date of commencement: 1 February 2021

-          Date of termination: 12 December 2024

-          Gross weekly wage: €720

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.