ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003119

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/07/2016

At:                         Workplace Relations Commission, Haddington Road, Dublin 4.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 and following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background

The Complainant was employed from 2^nd June 2013 and assigned to work with a named client as a Phone Repair Technician. On 23^rd November 2015 the Complainant transferred to the Named Respondent following a Transfer of Undertaking and still assigned to the same client. He was paid €420.00 gross per week. On 25^th January 2016 the Complainant was placed on indefinite lay-off and this was confirmed in writing to him on 1^st February 2016.

The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 10^th May 2016 in relation to his Redundancy entitlements.

Summary of Complainant’s Position.

The Complainant stated he was placed on indefinite lay-off and this was confirmed in writing to him on 1^st February 2016, The Complainant wrote to the Respondent seeking further work. The Respondent did not offer the Complainant any further assignments. The Complainant sent notice to the Respondent of his intention to claim redundancy using the RP 9 Form. The Respondent did not issue counter notice and therefore on 10^th March the Complainant served the RP77 Form on the Respondent seeking redundancy.

A Named person representing the Respondent phoned the Complainant on 30^th March 2016 and gave him a verbal assurance that he would be paid his redundancy entitlements.

The Complainant waited a number of weeks but heard nothing from the Respondent. He sought advice from a Representative of the Citizens Information Service who wrote to the Respondent on behalf of the Complainant on 21^st April 2016. There was no response and the Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC.

The Complainant raised an issue concerning the correct name and address of the Employer/Respondent. The correspondence from the Respondent to the Complainant is different from that on the CRO. They also said that they had come across another name and address in the UK. They requested that the Decision should be issued to all three named Respondents.

Findings 

On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find as follows: The Complainant has the required “requisite” service as determined by Section 7 (5) of the Act. The Complainant has also complied with Sections 11 and 12 of the Act as amended.

Decision.-CA-00004332 - CA-00005498 - CA-00005499 

On the basis of my Findings above I declare the Complaint is well founded.

I direct the Named Respondent to pay the Complainant his Statutory Redundancy entitlements in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

This to be paid to the Complainant within 42 days of the date of this Decision.

Date       15^th September 2016