ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003783
Complaint 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-00004503-001 | 17th May 2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13th September 2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and 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.
Attendance at Hearing:
By | Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A general worker | A Restaurant |
Background: .
The Complaint was employed by the Respondent from 1st June 2002 to 5th February 2016 and her weekly rate of pay was €350.00c.
The Complainant was submitting that her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy, but that she did not receive her redundancy payments in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Summary of Complainant’s Submission:
The Respondent stated he was closing the Company and he left the Country. He would not sign the RP50 form but had signed it for another employee who then received redundancy from the State. He cannot be contacted since he left. I sent the completed RP50 to Department of Social Protection, but as the employer had not signed it was sent back and I was advised to refer it to the WRC. |
The Complainant said that Company was not doing well. The Respondent stated that he was closing the Company with the loss of all jobs; he would not sign Form RP50 for the Complainant, but did so for another employee. The Respondent then closed the business and he left the Country. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent, ringing and texting him with no answer, to no avail.
The Complainant sought a decision that she was entitled to her statutory redundancy payments.
Summary of Respondent’s Position:
The Respondent was not present or represented and they sent no submissions.
Findings and Decision:
Section 80 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the same Section of that Act.
I have carefully considered the evidence and the submissions made and I have concluded as follows.
I note that the Respondent was not present or represented at the hearing and they sent no submissions, accordingly I only have the submissions and evidence of the Complainant to rely upon in these matters.
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find and declare that the complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1973 is well founded and it is upheld.
The Complainant was continuously employed, without any break in service, by the Respondent, from 1st June 2002 to 5th February 2016, a period of 13 years and 35 weeks/245 days, which is 13.67 years of continuous service. Based on this I calculate the following in relation to the Complainant’s entitlements:
- 13.67 years service x 2 weeks + 1 week = 28.34 weeks.
- 28.43 weeks x €350.00c = €9,919.00c.
I find and declare that the Complainant is entitled to the sum of €9,919.00c in statutory redundancy payments and that the Respondent should pay her that amount.
Dated: 25th November 2016