ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001126

Complaint/Dispute for Resolution:

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-00001828-001	08/01/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/02/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

Following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant seeks a redundancy payment from the Respondent . She worked as a Cleaner for fourteen years for the company when the cleaning contract was awarded to a Contract Cleaning Company.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent contends that the claim is misconceived as (a) the Act applies 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 the termination of employment”.

It is contended that the Complainant is not covered by the legislation.

Further it is contended that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent, was not on a contract of service and invoiced the Respondent on a regular basis for her services.

The Complainant was employed on a contract for service with the respondent since 2002.

She took on the contract following a family member’s retirement and was always aware that she was self-employed. In August 2015 the Complainant was advised that ISS had been awarded the contract for cleaning and that her services would be terminated in September 2015.

It was later established that although not an employee, it may have been possible for her to continue her duties as an employee of the new contractor. She commenced working under this contract from 7^th September 2015.

Decision:

It is common case that the Complainant’s job is currently being carried out by her and has been since the termination of her services with the Respondent. In that context, her position was not made redundant and her claim for a redundancy payment must therefore fail.

Dated: 15^th April 2016