ADJ-00007939

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007939

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A Barperson	A Public House

Complaint:

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-00010609-001	03/04/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, 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.

Background:

The complainant seeks statutory redundancy payment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant was employed by the respondent from 24^th February 2002 until 22^nd July 2016. At that time he informed her that the pub was being sold or leased (she was not sure which), but that the new owners/managers would be keeping her on with the same terms and conditions. However, the new management informed her that her length of service would not be preserved and she would be regarded as a new employee, thus negating her fourteen plus years service. In the circumstances, her solicitor engaged in correspondence with the respondent’s solicitor who informed him that he had advised his client (the respondent) of the situation regarding Transfer of Undertakings and Redundancy. It is argued that the complainant engaged in strenuous efforts between July 2016 and April 2017 to make contact with the respondent. She consulted a solicitor in September 2016 and the respondent was sent an RP77 form for redundancy on 29^th November 2016 but there was no reply. Between November 2016 and March/April 2017, correspondence between solicitors proved fruitless, so the claim was submitted to WRC. In these circumstances, it is argued than an extension of time for the complaint to be dealt with is warranted.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Decision:

This complaint was received on 3^rd April 2017. Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41 (8) provides:

“(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”.

I have considered the arguments made in support of the complainant’s failure to present her complaint until after the six months time limit. I note the efforts made to contact the respondent and the ensuing correspondence between the legal representatives. I am willing to extend the time.

I declare the complainant’s complaint to be well founded and she is entitled to statutory redundancy based on the service of 24^th February 2002 – 22^nd July 2016 and her gross weekly pay of €384.61.

Dated: 20^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham