ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001461

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00001955-007	14/01/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00001955-008	14/01/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00001955-009	14/01/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00001955-010	14/01/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 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:

The Complainant was employed as a Bar Tender from May 10th 2005 to September 10th 2015 and earned 220 Euro per week. The Complainant requested that the employer name be amended from the trading name to the owner, name supplied, as she had no statement of her actual employer name. This was noted.

On the 9th September 2015 without any warning the employer announced that he was closing and told the Complainant that her services were not required and her employment was ceased. However, at no stage did the employer cease trading and they proceeded to employ new staff by the end of September.

The Complainant advised that she has on numerous occasions asked her employer about redundancy. Nothing has been forthcoming to date.

The Complainant advised that she did not receive any notice or entitlements.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The Respondent was not present at the Hearing.

Decision:

Section 41 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.

Under section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 an employee is entitled to receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment within two months of commencing employment. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant she did not receive these written terms within the specified period. I award the Complainant 880 Euro for this breach of the Act, Complaint reference number CA-00001955-007.

Under Section 4.2.d of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and employee with more than 10 years continuous service is entitled to paid notice of 6 weeks. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant she did not receive this notice. I award the Complainant 1,320 Euro for this breach of the Act. , Complaint reference number CA-00001955-010.

The Complainant sought adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. This Act entitles a person made redundant, with the Complainants service, to receive a redundancy payment of two weeks per year of service plus a weeks payment. I award the Complainant an estimated redundancy payment of 6,086.66 Euro for this breach of the Act, Complaint reference number CA-00001955-009.

The Complainant sought adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. As the Complainant was not sure of the precise nature of the circumstances of the termination of employment and in the absence of the Respondent, the circumstances behind the cause of her termination were not easily determinable. However, based on the Complainants submission she was not given any notice or prior warning, no discussion of alternative options took place with the Respondent and consultation took place and the opportunity for representation was not available to the Complainant. Overall I feel the circumstances surrounding the procedure adopted by the Respondent in terminating the complainant by reason of redundancy left a lot to be desired given her prior service and there was no evidence from the Respondent to prove that the Complainants selection for redundancy was fair. In these circumstances I have concluded that the dismissal was unfair. I award the Complainant 5,000 Euro. CA-00001955-008 This award, for the avoidance of any doubt, is in addition to the above awards.

All of the above to be paid within four weeks of the date this decision.

Dated: 20 October 2016