ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005667
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Forecourt Attendant | Filling Station |
Representatives | MacGinley Quinn Solicitors |
|
Complaint(s):
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-00007893-001 | 28/10/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/04/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Location of Hearing: The Mullingar Park Hotel
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 was a forecourt attendant. The Respondent’s company was a retail filling station.
The Complainant started working for the Respondent on the 1st of November 2013. He was paid a gross weekly wage of €430.21.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
By the Complainant’s own evidence on the 26th of June 2015 his employer changed from the Respondent named in the claim form to an associated company of the Respondent. The associated company was not named in the claim form. The Complainant was aware of the transfer when he lodged the complaint form as it was referred to in his submission. The claim form was lodged by the Complainant on the 28th of October 2016.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The appearer’s evidence was that he had sold the company named as Respondent on the complaint form and he was no longer a company director and he had no authority to act on behalf of the Respondent. He was personally named with the Respondent on the complaint form with the Respondent.
He acknowledged that letters were sent to him by the WRC but he stated that he didn’t know who the company directors of the Respondent were. He stated he didn’t know when he sold the Respondent company.
He was a director of the associated company and did not consent to that company being added to the case.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant moved to a new employer, the associated company on the 26th of June 2015. There was no dismissal at the time.
Records obtained from the Company Registration Office show that there was a change in the director or secretary of the Respondent effective on the 6th of July 2016.
A preliminary application was made to substitute the associated company for the Respondent named in the claim form.
It is for a Complainant to establish the correct identity of his or her employer and to ensure that proceedings are issued against the correct Respondent.
I have no power to amend the parties to the proceedings or substitute one Respondent for another without the consent of those affected.
Having heard all the evidence and considered submissions both written and oral, notwithstanding the background for the error in this case, I cannot substitute the associated company for the Respondent named in the claim form. |
Decision:
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.
In the circumstances I have no option but to find that the Respondent has no liability to the Complainant as the Complainant was not employed by the Respondent since 26th June 2015.
There was no dismissal of the Complainant by the Respondent at that time.
|
Dated: 10th July 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Wrong Respondent |