# No money for redundancy payments



## gracey (17 Jul 2014)

Hi, 
I have run my own business for the past 10yrs with 4 other staff members. They have been on a 3 day week on and off for the past 3 years, more on than off to be honest. I am reaching retirement age later this year and have been keeping the business going on my savings for the last 3 years. The business has no money to pay out redundancy potential 60K. All their tax contributions are paid up todate. 

I want the lads to get their payouts but I dont know how to go about it. Do I close the business, liquidate it, strike it off? I want to retire not owing any money and will make sure suppliers etc are all clear. Do I tell the lads my plan and give them a years notice? 

Any advise offered would be greatly appreciated as I am just prolonging the inevitable at this stage.


----------



## seanie08 (17 Jul 2014)

First of all don't be worried about making the staff redundant. I was in the same situation about 5 years ago. We are a company in the construction industry,(not builders) we were left high and dry by several developers and work dried up. We had to let our staff off due to no work, some of them being with us up to 15 years. Most of them didn't mind once they got their redundancy and were not very much worse off due to our Countries social welfare system.
I was advised to plead poverty, which was true and play for time. 
We contacted Dept of Trade and enterprise filled out there forms(RP50 I think) Gave them a letter from our accountant declaring our inability to pay. My Employees all got there full redundancy, the debt falling back on me which i owed to the Dept. It might take a little while due to back log.
I acknowledged that I owed them the money and once a year I got a letter asking me to verify my situation, which I said I was unable to pay.
After 4 years they again contacted me, and asked could I pay anything? We agreed on a nominal small sum per month and they were delighted to get it as most people had just closed up shop owing them the money.
It will take us a long time to pay back, we didn't loose our tax clearance cert, we have 3 employed again and things are picking up. Happy Days.


----------



## Jim Stafford (17 Jul 2014)

Dealing with employee entitlements is a complex area.

If the underlying business is viable, or if it can be made viable, then you should try and protect the business.  However, if you have been propping up the business with personal savings it seems that the business is not viable.  In that case you should liquidate the company.

Once a liquidator is appointed he will deal with the employee claims, and the State will pay the employees directly any redundancy claims that they have.  The State will put the liquidator in funds to pay any claims for minimum notice and unpaid salaries etc.  The state will then become a subrogated preferential creditor in the liquidation, and receive any dividends that are paid out.

Jim Stafford


----------



## gracey (18 Jul 2014)

Thank you for your responses I really appreciate it as Ive never been in this situation before. 

Seanie did you continue to trade while making your staff redundant and the re-appoint them? Jim if I was to appoint a liquidator there isnt enough to pay suppliers and the state what happens in that situation. ?

As the process of the state paying them their redundancy lump sum takes such a long time should I be upfront with the lads and start progressing this sooner rather than later. I would still like to continue trading and keep the lads for another 18months or so until my state pension kicks in but I dont know if the business can hang in that long...


----------



## seanie08 (20 Jul 2014)

I just completely downsized, and stayed trading I, had the lads use x&o. They worked when I had work and signed on the days we had nothing. I would tell them things are going bad but wouldnt let them know for definate until your ready to do it.
You have to let them off before you start the process, even when it was slow it was slow it only took about 6months.
Without knowing your situation it sounds like you could be a lot deeper in debt in 18months time.


----------



## Branz (20 Jul 2014)

gracey said:


> Thank you for your responses I really appreciate it as Ive never been in this situation before.
> 
> Seanie did you continue to trade while making your staff redundant and the re-appoint them? Jim if I was to appoint a liquidator there isnt enough to pay suppliers and the state what happens in that situation. ?
> 
> As the process of the state paying them their redundancy lump sum takes such a long time should I be upfront with the lads and start progressing this sooner rather than later. I would still like to continue trading and keep the lads for another 18months or so until my state pension kicks in but I dont know if the business can hang in that long...



I presume you have seen the stuff here: http://www.cro.ie/ena/business-termination.aspx

Is it a limited company you have, business could mean anything?

You might also read this, which may be from the same source as post 3 here.


I am not suggesting you are at this but here we are 18 months out from your State Pension and you KNOW you cannot pay redundancy so you expect the State to pick it up.

On the one hand we have folk saying that bailing out families who have unsustainable NE in a house is wrong because its all moral hazard, yet here we read that we can get accountants declaring inability to pay and business  owners being advised to plead poverty and play for time and stick the State with the redundancy, min wages, unpaid salaries etc.

To paraphrase Enda: it IS a great little country to do business, when the taxpayer is there to do all of the above.


----------



## seanie08 (20 Jul 2014)

If you are unable to pay then you are unable to pay. Playing for time can work, if you think you can work your way out of the debt.
When you get to this stage your options are limited, you can try pay who you can, or close up and pay no one.
This person sounds like he is a genuine person that cares about the way things have worked out, i would imagine a lot of the people that owe him have just closed up owing him money and don't care less.
I would rather someone pay me a small amount of what they owe me every month than nothing at all.


----------



## RainyDay (20 Jul 2014)

gracey said:


> Hi,
> I have run my own business for the past 10yrs with 4 other staff members. They have been on a 3 day week on and off for the past 3 years, more on than off to be honest. I am reaching retirement age later this year and have been keeping the business going on my savings for the last 3 years. The business has no money to pay out redundancy potential 60K. All their tax contributions are paid up todate.
> 
> I want the lads to get their payouts but I dont know how to go about it. Do I close the business, liquidate it, strike it off? I want to retire not owing any money and will make sure suppliers etc are all clear. Do I tell the lads my plan and give them a years notice?
> ...



Sorry to hear that things aren't going well.

First of all, you might clarify if you are talking about statutory redundancy, or something more than that.

If you're talking about statutory redundancy, you might clarify how you worked out that it's OK to pay suppliers their full debts but not employees?


----------



## Gerry Canning (21 Jul 2014)

Ircoha; 
Maybe set up a post on your comments;
(On the one hand bailing out families in unsustainable negative equity is wrong due to moral hazard, yet we have accountants and businesses getting bailed out)

Moral hazard is a (lovely) word , much favoured by laisez-faire economists , unless of course they are bondholders etc! 
It is so easy to use the moral hazard argument , funny though it is normally the little people that suffer.

On this thread I feel gracey is trying to be very fair to all, but if moral hazard applied he would be banjaxed..


----------



## RainyDay (21 Jul 2014)

Gerry Canning said:


> On this thread I feel gracey is trying to be very fair to all


Except for the bit about paying off suppliers before employees (assuming that he's referring to statutory redundancy).


----------



## DB74 (21 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> If you're talking about statutory redundancy, you might clarify how you worked out that it's OK to pay suppliers their full debts but not employees?



Because the social insurance scheme will pay the employees their dues but not the suppliers so this way everyone gets paid. Do it the other way and suppliers will not get paid and may have to let other staff go etc etc.


----------



## mandelbrot (21 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Sorry to hear that things aren't going well.
> 
> First of all, you might clarify if you are talking about statutory redundancy, or something more than that.
> 
> *If you're talking about statutory redundancy, you might clarify how you worked out that it's OK to pay suppliers their full debts but not employees?*


 
I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it's only statutory redundancy the guy is talking about, given the circumstances.

Re: the emboldened bit, until the day that he decides to call a creditors meeting to cease trading and wind up the company, the OP has the obligation to pay his suppliers for his purchases, and his employees for their work. Your post implies that somehow an employer should have a reserve of cash set aside somewhere to pay staff statutory redundancy in the event of the business going under, which is pretty nonsensical from a real world commercial perspective - since any company with enough cash to set aside for that isn't going under. He only incurs the liability to the redundancy when the lads cease to be employed, which is when he makes the decision to wind up. Until that date he should continue to pay his creditors in the normal way, just as he should the employees' wages, and the fiduciary taxes.

And you might clarify how you've decided from what the OP said that he has "*worked out that it's OK to pay suppliers their full debts but not employees?*" - as I don't infer that from his posts... he simply says that he won't have enough money to pay everyone everything. I think the OP is in a horrible situation, is ASKING how best to deal with it fairly (you'll note his primary concern in starting the thread is for his employees) and the tone of your comment is very patronising.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Jul 2014)

DB74 said:


> Because the social insurance scheme will pay the employees their dues but not the suppliers so this way everyone gets paid.


I suspect you're right, and I asked the question to get confirmation of this.

This is socialisation of private sector losses. Statutory redundancy is a liability of the business. It seems as if the closure of the business is being engineered to ensure that this liability is handed over to the State, just as banking losses were handed over to the State. I suspect that the State is getting a little tired of paying the losses of private businesses.



mandelbrot said:


> I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that it's only statutory redundancy the guy is talking about, given the circumstances.


I'd say you're right, but I asked the question just to be sure, as it would completely change the answer if he was talking about payments over statutory.



mandelbrot said:


> Re: the emboldened bit, until the day that he decides to call a creditors meeting to cease trading and wind up the company, the OP has the obligation to pay his suppliers for his purchases, and his employees for their work. Your post implies that somehow an employer should have a reserve of cash set aside somewhere to pay staff statutory redundancy in the event of the business going under, which is pretty nonsensical from a real world commercial perspective - since any company with enough cash to set aside for that isn't going under. He only incurs the liability to the redundancy when the lads cease to be employed, which is when he makes the decision to wind up. Until that date he should continue to pay his creditors in the normal way, just as he should the employees' wages, and the fiduciary taxes.


I'm no legal expert, but I understood that one of the major concerns of receivers or liquidators that can end up in recommendations for restricting directors was where directors were seen to favour one debtor or class of debtors over others.

The point about the timing of the liability is, from a business point of view and an ethical point of view, a moot point. The owner knows this liability exists and is coming down the line, as evidenced by the posting here in the first place. Any pretence otherwise is just that - pretence. 



mandelbrot said:


> And you might clarify how you've decided from what the OP said that he has "*worked out that it's OK to pay suppliers their full debts but not employees?*" - as I don't infer that from his posts...


I inferred that from the following statements in his post;


gracey said:


> Hi,
> I have run my own business for the past 10yrs with 4 other staff members. They have been on a 3 day week on and off for the past 3 years, more on than off to be honest. I am reaching retirement age later this year and have been keeping the business going on my savings for the last 3 years. The business has no money to pay out redundancy potential 60K. All their tax contributions are paid up todate.
> 
> I want the lads to get their payouts but I dont know how to go about it. Do I close the business, liquidate it, strike it off? I want to retire not owing any money and will make sure suppliers etc are all clear. Do I tell the lads my plan and give them a years notice?
> ...





gracey said:


> Hi,
> The business has no money to pay out redundancy potential 60K.
> 
> I want the lads to get their payouts but I dont know how to go about it. Do I close the business, liquidate it, strike it off?
> ...


There is a clear intention to continue to pay money to suppliers and not provide for redundancy for employees. Indeed, there is an expectation that someone else (the State) will step up to pay redundancy for the employees.



mandelbrot said:


> he simply says that he won't have enough money to pay everyone everything.


Not true - he explicitly states his intention to pay off suppliers but not provide for his liability to employees.



mandelbrot said:


> I think the OP is in a horrible situation, is ASKING how best to deal with it fairly (you'll note his primary concern in starting the thread is for his employees) and the tone of your comment is very patronising.


Yes, I agree that he's in a horrible situation, and I recognise that he's worked hard to provide employment in difficult circumstances, and that he is funding the business out of his own pocket.

But none of that entitles him to put suppliers before his liability to employees.

My comment wasn't meant to be patronising, and I apologise if it came across that way. It was meant to be challenging, and I don't apologise for challenging the assumption that the State should pay the statutory redundancy that he owes his employees.


----------



## Purple (21 Jul 2014)

It  should be remembered that when the OP set up his business he paid the state employers PRSI in order to fund statutory redundancy payments. If the discussion is about Moral Hazard then it is the state that is at fault; it still insists on the employer paying social insurance but provides nothing in return. The state is running an insurance scheme but doesn't have to make payments. If the mafia did that there'd be books written about it!


----------



## Gerry Canning (21 Jul 2014)

Nice one Purple!


----------



## ang1170 (21 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> I'm no legal expert, but I understood that one of the major concerns of receivers or liquidators that can end up in recommendations for restricting directors was where directors were seen to favour one debtor or class of debtors over others.
> 
> The point about the timing of the liability is, from a business point of view and an ethical point of view, a moot point. The owner knows this liability exists and is coming down the line, as evidenced by the posting here in the first place. Any pretence otherwise is just that - pretence.
> 
> But none of that entitles him to put suppliers before his liability to employees.


 
The reality of business in this country is that this happens all the time, and receivers are quite happy to facilitate it.

I wouldn't have a go at the OP, who is clearly trying to do the best they can to do the right thing for everyone concerned.


----------



## RainyDay (21 Jul 2014)

ang1170 said:


> The reality of business in this country is that this happens all the time, and receivers are quite happy to facilitate it.


That doesn't surprise me, but would you like to expand on your comment about the receivers. I'd have assumed that by the time the receiver gets involved, they have little or no choice or discretion, because the money is gone - or perhaps I misunderstood something? Or do you mean that they don't bother reporting this as a directors offence?



ang1170 said:


> I wouldn't have a go at the OP, who is clearly trying to do the best they can to do the right thing for everyone concerned.


Everyone except the State who is left to pick up his liability to his employees.


----------



## Purple (22 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Everyone except the State who is left to pick up his liability to his employees.



The OP wasn’t responsible for that liability until very recently. He paid high levels of payroll taxes to the state for years in order to fund that liability. The state then reneged on their responsibility and unilaterally changed the rules, insisting that the OP continued to pay for insurance that he could no longer receive. 
In short the OP has already paid the state to provide redundancy for his employees. The issue here is he doesn’t have the money to pay for it again.


----------



## Bronte (22 Jul 2014)

I'm a bit lost on this.  The workers are entitled to statutory redundancy and will be paid by the state, from the contributions made over the years.  So there is no issue surely?

One other suggestion Gracey, if the business is viable, why close it down.  Let the workers take it over.  Unless of course they would prefer to be made redundant.


----------



## Purple (22 Jul 2014)

Bronte said:


> I'm a bit lost on this.  The workers are entitled to statutory redundancy and will be paid by the state, from the contributions made over the years.  So there is no issue surely?



Even though the employer paid for the state to provide a rebate towards the cost of statutory redundancy Joan Burton, as Minister for Social Welfare, unilaterally reneged on that  commitment and now, despite the fact that the employer still has to pay their contribution, the state now provides nothing towards redundancy payments.
From the [broken link removed] website;


> Employer rebate abolition: From January 1st 2013 the employer statutory redundancy rebate was abolished. Where the date of dismissal occurred in 2012 the employer rebate is 15%. If the date of dismissal was in 2011 or earlier the employer rebate is 60%.


----------



## RainyDay (22 Jul 2014)

Bronte said:


> I'm a bit lost on this.  The workers are entitled to statutory redundancy and will be paid by the state, from the contributions made over the years.  So there is no issue surely?


Statutory redundancy payment is the responsibility of the employer.

From [broken link removed].

"In the first instance it is up to the employer to pay the statutory redundancy lump sum to all eligible employees. However, where the employer is unable to pay or refuses or fails to pay, the employee can apply for direct payment from the Social Insurance Fund"​
Payments made to the Social Insurance fund by both employer and employee cover social insurance, including healthcare and various social welfare benefits.  While there used to be a rebate of statutory redundancy, this has been cut back, like many social welfare benefits.

Past payments to the Social Insurance fund do not allow the employer to cop-out on his legal obligations to pay statutory protection and to choose instead to repay suppliers. That would be equivalent to Sean Dunne coming out with the 'I've paid plenty of tax over the years, so I don't need to worry about repaying my debts to the State banks". The scheme for the State to pay statutory redundancy is a 'last resort' fallback position, not a financial engineering device.


----------



## Purple (22 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Payments made to the Social Insurance fund by both employer and employee cover social insurance, including healthcare and various social welfare benefits.  While there used to be a rebate of statutory redundancy, this has been cut back, like many social welfare benefits.
> 
> Past payments to the Social Insurance fund do not allow the employer to cop-out on his legal obligations to pay statutory protection and to choose instead to repay suppliers. That would be equivalent to Sean Dunne coming out with the 'I've paid plenty of tax over the years, so I don't need to worry about repaying my debts to the State banks". The scheme for the State to pay statutory redundancy is a 'last resort' fallback position, not a financial engineering device.



That’s a very disingenuous post. The provision has not been “cut back”, it has been removed. It used to be 60% of the cost, now its zero. 
The only benefit the employer gained from the  10.75% rate they pay was that rebate. They now get nothing.


----------



## mandelbrot (22 Jul 2014)

Statutory redundancy is a contingent liability, and nothing more than that, until the day you know you can no longer continue to trade your way out of a difficulty. The money you owe your creditors is an actual liability, as soon as they provide you with their goods/service. 

By RainyDay's logic no company could ever trade through a difficulty, as they'd be ethically bound to cease trading as soon as their reserves fell below the level required to pay employees their redundancy.

If all small employers, or even bigger ones, were to operate according to that proposal, i.e. maintaining a sufficient reserve of money to pay all employees' redundancy entitlements, it would effectively mean any business experiencing even a minor cash flow issue would have to liquidate itself, as by RainyDay's code of ethics it would not be able to pay its creditors and therefore would very quickly not be able to carry on.

In other words it would require all businesses to operate with an ever increasing amount of capital tied up (as employees' years of service racks up) to cover a potential liability that may never arise... 

The consequence of which would be, less PAYE employment and greater use of subcontracted labour which in unskilled sectors has been proven to result in wage deflation, much more frequent turnover of employees, much more frequent liquidations, and a generally more difficult business environment...

Unless I'm missing something?


----------



## RainyDay (22 Jul 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Statutory redundancy is a contingent liability, and nothing more than that, until the day you know you can no longer continue to trade your way out of a difficulty.



And for the OP, that day is the day they wrote the post, as they knew and had clearly decided that they wouldn't be trading out of the difficulty.

And yet, the OP (and most others) seem justified in manipulating events and the remaining pot of money to ensure that creditors get their full payment and employees get nothing. That's what you're missing.


----------



## mandelbrot (22 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> And for the OP, that day is the day they wrote the post, as they knew and had clearly decided that they wouldn't be trading out of the difficulty.
> 
> And yet, the OP (and most others) seem justified in manipulating events and the remaining pot of money to ensure that creditors get their full payment and employees get nothing. That's what you're missing.


 
Ah would ya climb down off your high horse - why do you assume the OP is aware of the legal order of priority of creditors?! And don't forget, the biggest creditor at this stage is most likely himself, and that one won't be getting paid.

Now that he's been told it may change his plans.

So again, by your logic, the OP should actually already have shut down his business, and those guys will be no better off financially but out of a job 12 months sooner... if you were a doctor RainyDay, methinks you'd be the type to kill the patient and then say you'd cured the disease...


----------



## Bronte (22 Jul 2014)

mandelbrot said:


> Ah
> 
> And don't forget, the biggest creditor at this stage is most likely himself, and that one won't be getting paid.


 
And it seems this is only too true because Gracey in the first post menioned he has been keeping the business going from his own savings.


----------



## Bronte (22 Jul 2014)

RainyDay said:


> And for the OP, that day is the day they wrote the post, as they knew and had clearly decided that they wouldn't be trading out of the difficulty.
> 
> And yet, the OP (and most others) seem justified in manipulating events and the remaining pot of money to ensure that creditors get their full payment and employees get nothing. That's what you're missing.


 
I don't know what you are reading different to the rest of us.  The opening post was clear that the poster is trying to do their best for everybody, the suppliers and the staff and has kept the business going via their own savings and has managed to employ people for 10 years.  That's something to be commended not attacked.  

The poster came on here to AAM to seek advise on the correct way forward. You turning that into something dodgy or underhand is unfair.  And it is surely offputting to the original poster.


----------



## Purple (22 Jul 2014)

If the creditors (suppliers) don't get paid they may have to lay off some employees and in turn have to pay redundancy. Missing that is what happens when you look at the world through a one-eyed socialist dogma instead of in a balanced rational way. 
Most employers place the welfare of their employees (or "Wurkers" if you prefer) at the top of their priorities. The OP has done this in spades and should be lauded for doing so, not attacked because of a "Wurkers Good, Employers Bad" slogan playing to the air of The Internationale in the head of posters reading this thread.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Jul 2014)

That is all folks

Brendan


----------

