ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001061
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
|
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 |
CA-00001445-001 |
14/12/2015 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 |
CA-00001445-002 |
14/12/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/05/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
I was temporarily laid off on the 30/10/2015 for 4 weeks. I was told to return to work on the 23/11/2015. When I came in that day I was told there was no work and that I was being let go effective immediately. They also told me they had no money in the company to pay me my redundancy, which I have outlined in a separate complaint. They said they would fill the RP50 form and send it in but to date, they have not sent it back and have not answered or returned any of my calls. |
On the 23/11/2015 I was told by my employers that they no longer had any work and I was being let go effective immediately. In that conversation they said they had no money in the company to pay me my redundancy, and that they would send in a RP50 Form, which they have still not done. WIll not respond or return any calls or texts. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
No Appearance
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Issues for Decision:
Complaint CA-00001451-001:
Whether the complainant qualifies for the Minimum Notice requirements and has he received any payment in lieu of notice from the respondent.
Complaint CA-00001451-002:
Whether the complainant qualifies for a Redundancy Payment and has he received any payment from the respondent in this regard.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms Of Employment Act 1973 sets down the qualification criteria:
“(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.”
Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets down the criteria for a employee being made redundant:
“(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short- time for a 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.”
Decision:
The complainant gave evidence that he had commenced employment with the respondent since 2nd January 2009 and had been continuously employed until 30th October 2015. He was laid off on that date for a period of four weeks. When the complainant presented himself for work at the end of that period he was informed by one of the directors that there was no more work for him. The complainant was further informed that he was being made redundant but that there was no money to pay him his redundancy. The director stated that the necessary forms would be submitted to the Department of Social Protection but the complainant had heard nothing further in this regard.
There was no appearance from the respondent but an email had been received by the Commission on 5th February 2016 stating that the respondent proposed to pay the complainant the sum of €2068.00 in respect of money due under the Minimum Notice claim. This would be paid by four consecutive weekly payments. The complainant stated that he had received some payments in this regard and had bank statements indicating that five payments had been made to his account between 5th February 2016 and 16th March 2016 totalling €1284.00. The complainant submitted a copy payslip which showed a basic weekly wage of €570.00 (€517.13 net).
Based on the above I make the following decisions:
Complaint CA-00001451-001:
The applicable amount of notice due to the complainant is as set out in Section 4(2)(c) of the Act:
“ if the employee has been in continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks”
I find that this complaint is well founded and order the respondent to pay the claimant the sum of €996.00 which is four weeks’ wages less the amount of €1284.00 already paid.
Complaint CA-00001451-002:
I find that the complainant has not received any payment from the respondent in this regard and therefore is entitled to a lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 to 2007 based on the following criteria;
Date of Commencement: 2 January 2009
Date of Termination: 23 November 2015
Weekly Pay: €570.00
The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
Dated: 27th June 2016