Diego Barbosa v Lifetimecare Ltd [2024]
Decision Number: ADJ-00048645
Published on: 05/04/2024
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Paul D Maier BL Barrister
Paul D Maier BL Barrister
Paul maier

Paul D Maier is a barrister specialising in the law of work, labour, and employment. Based in Dublin, Ireland, he is a member of the Law Library, having been called to the Bar in 2022.

Paul represents both employers and employees at all levels of the Courts, as well as before the Labour Court and the Workplace Relations Commission. He is a qualified arbitrator and is frequently commissioned to lead independent investigations and disciplinary procedures for organisations. Additionally, he is regularly engaged to provide legal advice and opinions on employment law and related matters.

Paul serves as the Editor of the Irish Employment Law Journal and Employment Law Report, and he is the Treasurer of the Employment Bar Association.

Background

Background: The Complainant was employed as a Financial Controller for the Respondent, which provided care assistants to clients. In September 2023 the Respondent’s owner said there had been an issue with pay, and on 5 October 2023 the Respondent’s owner posted a picture of a letter on the company’s WhatsApp group addressing this problem. This letter advised that the Directors of the Respondent decided to cease trading from 5 pm that day. This was due to the Respondent having failed to pay the Revenue Commissioners, which resulted in the Respondent not being able to receive payments from its client for work completed in the prior two months. This resulted in a cash shortfall that left the Respondent unable to pay its staff or other creditors. The Respondent’s owner removed himself from the company WhatsApp group immediately after posting this letter and blocked himself from receiving any further messages.

The Complainant alleged he was owed a number of entitlements, including weekly wages for six weeks, as well as accrued annual leave entitlements, an owed redundancy lump sum, minimum notice for a dismissal and compensation for having been prevented from taking annual leave in the prior year.

Outcome: The Respondent did not attend the hearing, and so the evidence given by the Complainant was uncontroverted. As a result, the Adjudication Officer found all complaints made to be well-founded. Given the financial position of the employer, it is likely that many, if not all, of these awards will fall to be paid by the statutory insolvency payments scheme.

Practical Guidance for Employers: It is insufficient for an employer to claim they do not have the funds to pay their workers and to close their doors, and doing so still gives rise to claims in employment law.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2024/march/adj-00048645.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 05/04/2024
Legal Island’s LMS, licensed to you Imagine your staff having 24/7 access to a centralised training platform, tailored to your organisation’s brand and staff training needs, with unlimited users. Learn more →