Earlier this year, an employee who was made redundant by an engineering company levelled accusations of financial manipulation against the firm. The person claims the company attempted to evade payments to both its staff and suppliers. The person expressed their frustration with the company’s multiple excuses to delay payments, explaining their need for the rightfully owed amount to cater to everyday expenses, including feeding their family, paying mortgage, and fueling their car.
Francis Declan Radmall is the individual in the spotlight, and he is one among two previous employees who have filed claims against Randridge International Ltd. Their claims are centred on alleged unpaid salaries after their redundancy took effect in July. Based out of Johannesburg in South Africa, Radmall insists he has not received his redundancy benefits or certain amounts he maintains are duely his as salary. He insists these outstanding payments total €25,995.60.
During a hearing that held on Monday, Radmall referenced a company letter which explained they were finding it difficult to pay wages due to the repercussions of bankruptcy. This situation necessitated compulsory redundancies in the company.
This contentious letter was dated 10th of July and communicated Radmall’s redundancy, effective from the 5th of July. Conversely, the CEO of the company, Darren Daly, asserted that he had emailed this information to the aggrieved party on the 4th of July.
Radmall claimed he was entitled to a salary increment from €52,000 to €56,000, translating to an additional €333.33 per month. This increase he alleges the company neglected to pay from June 2023 till the end of his tenure. Responding to this, Daly stated that Radmall did not endorse the contract that communicated the pay increase. In reply, Radmall argued that the contract could be activated without his signature.
Furthermore, Radmall reckoned there was an outstanding €2,833 on his salary for June and €5,495.65 for July, despite not having received his salary slips for these months.
Mr Daly highlighted that Mr Radmall, in his appeal form, purported that he received “no salary for June.” However, the company reported they had dispensed 40 per cent of Mr Radmall’s wages for June. Roberta Urbon, representing the respondent from Peninsula, confirmed that Mr Radmall received a “partial payment” of his June’s wages in July.
Mr Radmall alleged that he had requested payslips from the company via a data subject access request to corroborate the figures, but claimed to have received nothing.
“You did receive some remuneration in June, pertaining to your June salary,” Mr O’Neill asserted.
“I cannot provide evidence of that,” responded Mr Radmall.
Mr Radmall further declared that he was due an “additional” payment of €2,500.
Ms Urbon attested that “most” of Mr Radmall’s claims have been settled.
Breiffni O’Neill, the adjudicating officer emphasised the need for a detailed insight into Mr Radmall’s pay grievances, requesting a breakdown rather than an overall view. The case was paused to allow the company to produce salient documents, like payslips for June and July.
Mr O’Neill stated that it was improbable that the tribunal would schedule the case any earlier than the upcoming year.
“Frankly, their behaviour is unacceptable. Randridge is merely playing a monetary game,” reproached Mr Radmall. He claimed to have an extensive list of “more than 20 individuals” whom he purported were owed funds by the company.
“I hope Peninsula does not fall under the category of those overlooked for payment,” he said, referring to the human resources consultant representing the company.
“This is a recurrent problem and I have extended an olive branch towards the organisation to rectify this sans the intervention of the WRC. Their responses have been nothing but negative,” he added.
“The company exhibits the same treatment towards me, their suppliers, and others. Their assumed intent seems to be skirting contractual obligations to pay,” he expressed.
In a distinct hearing on Monday, one more ex-employee of Randridge, Alison Tynan retracted a claim for statutory redundancy. She disclosed that she had received a payment from the company “a day before.”
Ms Tynan communicated her ongoing pursuit for six weeks’ notice pay, two weeks’ salary, and the equivalent of three days in replacement of collected yearly leave. On July 4th this year, she was requested to join a meeting with her boss, during which she was given two payslips. However, her boss stated that they were unable to make the payments indicated on the slips. Subsequently, Ms Tynan received a letter confirming the owed amount, but she has not received the money and there has been no further communication since. Mr O’Neil expressed that there seemed to be an approximately €6,500 shortfall, which was acknowledged by Ms Tynan. The claim was accepted by Ms Urbon. Mr O’Neill stated his verdict would be issued in writing to the involved parties and adjourned the proceedings.