ADJ-00007387

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Wholesale and Retail Trader

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-00009914-001

25/02/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00009914-003

25/02/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00009914-004

25/02/2017

On 25 February, 2017, the complainant , a Polish National submitted three complaints to the WRC in relation to unpaid wages , Lumps sum redundancy payment and Statutory Minimum Notice. A Hearing was convened for June 14, 2017, where neither Party was in attendance .I was satisfied that both parties had been correctly notified of the hearing and I allowed a significant waiting period to allow for logistical eventualities , but neither parties explained their respective absence .

The complainant submitted a written complaint form on 25 February, 2017, which contended that she had not received

1 1,028.19 euro in unpaid wages and notice payments

2 A Redundancy Lump sum payment

3 Statutory Minimum Notice

When the company in which she worked as a Sales Assistant closed in December 2016.

No further evidence was adduced on the claim and there was no appearance from the complainant at hearing .

The Respondent submitted an initial response in written form to the complaints on 23 March, 2017.The Respondent confirmed that the company had ceased trading and submitted that the company had no funds, no stock and no assests .The Respondent added that Redundancy calculations had been prepared and signed by the employees , inclusive of two weeks minimum notice figures .These had been forwarded in the complainants case to the “ Social Welfare Redundancy Department”. The WRC forwarded this information to the complainant on 20 April , 2017 .

On 9 June , 2017 , The respondent submitted a further letter to the WRC which stated that a number of workers, inclusive of the complainant had  received redundancy and minimum notice payments .

There was no appearance of behalf of the respondent at the hearing . I was not in a position to inquire into the respondents submissions .

There was no appearance for or on behalf of either the complainant or the respondent at the hearing . I find that the claims cannot succeed for want of prosecution .

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I hold a hearing to permit both parties to present evidence relevant to the complaints .Section 41 also requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

1 CA-00009914 -001

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act requires me to make a decision in relation to the complaint.

The complaint falls for want of prosecution.

2 CA -00009914 -003

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.

The complaint falls for want of prosecution .

3 CA -00009914-004

Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act , 1973 requires me to make a decision in this case .

The complaint falls for want of prosecution .

Redundancy , Non Payment of Wages , Minimum Notice .