ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006909
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Project Engineer | An Engineering Company |
Representatives |
| Lauren Tennyson B.L. instructed by Dillon Solicitors. |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00009375-001 | 29/01/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00009375-002 | 29/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/07/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 commenced employment with the respondent in January 1994. He left the employment on August 5th 2016. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant accepted in his evidence that he had not been made redundant and that a more appropriate complaint would have been one of constructive dismissal. The complaint in relation to pay had been resolved before the hearing and had been withdrawn. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent confirmed that it received notice of the complainant’s intention to leave on August 25th 2016. He made various claims about being on short time but his hours were such that he did not meet the statutory definition of short time. In any event that has no bearing on the complaint which is made under the Redundancy Payments Act. The respondent noted that the complainant had accepted that his complaint had been made under the wrong legislation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As noted above the complainant accepted that he had made an error in submitting his complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act. I find that he was not made redundant but left his employment of his own accord. While he argued that there were contributory factors in his decision to do so they are not relevant to a com0plaint under this legislation. Accordingly his complaint fails. The complaint under the Payment of Wages Act had been resolved before 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.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
For the reasons set out above I do not uphold CA-0009375 001 and 002 and they are both dismissed. |
Dated: 21st August 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Redundancy, claim error. |