ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000434
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) 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-00000494-001 | 28/10/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 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:
The Respondent College closed unexpectedly in October 2014 and as a result the staff are still owed final month's wages, holiday pay and redundancy pay. Several efforts were made to force a liquidation in the last year but these have been unsuccessful. As a result, I have been advised by my former colleagues to pursue unpaid wages and redundancy through the Workplace Relations Commission. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
Did not attend hearing – no submission received.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 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 the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
Issues for Decision:
Did the Complainant qualify for a statutory Redundancy payment under the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. – Qualifying period of service.
Decision:
Section 7 (5) Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 requires a period of 104 weeks continuous employment before qualifying for a redundancy payment.
As the Complainant does not meet this requirement the claim is not well founded and is dismissed.
Dated: 20th May 2016