ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003741

Complaint(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/08/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, 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.

Attendance at Hearing:

 Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant advised that she commenced employment with the respondent in 2006 and never received terms and conditions of employment. She advised that she was notified on 25^th April 2006 that the shop would close and that she would be required to work for a period of time to clean out the shop. Her employment continued until May 17^th when she was told she was no longer needed and let go. She was not offered redundancy initially and when she was, she was only offered redundancy based on 5 years service. She served an RP77 on her employer on the 8^th June 2016.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent represented herself and was happy to proceed unrepresented. She confirmed the business had been run by her father-in-law until her husband took it over on 1^st July 2011 and that she ran the business on his behalf. She highlighted that employees were treated well and that the business traded successfully in 2011 and 2012 but due to changing shopping habits amongst other things the business began to deteriorate. It eventually resulted in the decision being made to close the business. Employees were informed on April 25^th 2016 and were engaged to clean out the shop until the business eventually closed on 17^th May 2016. She advised that the business was family run and that they always had a personal and casual relationship with employees.

The respondent claimed that she offered redundancy based on when the business was taken over in 2011 by her husband. Such redundancy payment in the form of a bank draft had not been accepted by the complainant. The respondent did, however, concede at the hearing that the complainant’s service included the time covered with the previous owner of the shop. She could not confirm the start date of the complainant as she said the relevant records were not available but said that she would not dispute what the complainant stated. The respondent accepted also that the complainant had never received terms and conditions of employment as it was a small business.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994                    

Sec 7 (2) (d) of the Act orders “…the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employee's employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977”

Redundancy Payment Acts

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out the criteria for an 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:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under the appropriate Acts. As the main facts of the case were not in dispute and based on the evidence and documentation submitted, my decisions are as follows:

CA-00005442-001 (Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Acts)

In respect of the minimum notice claim I find that the claim succeeds and as the claimant has already received three weeks of her required four weeks notice, I award the sum of €176.04, this being the outstanding one weeks gross wages due under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts.

CA-00005442-002 (Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994)

In respect of the Terms of Employment claim, I find that the claim succeeds and award the sum of €177.00 to the Complainant pursuant to Section 7 (2) (d) Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

.

CA-00005442-004 (Redundancy Payments Acts)

In respect of the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 I find that the claim succeeds and awards the appellant a redundancy lump sum based on the following;

Date of Commencement:        22^nd May 2006

Date of Termination:               17^th May 2016         

Gross Weekly Pay:                  €176.04

These awards are made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

 Dated:   28^th September 2016