ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004090
Complaint for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00004378-001 | 11/05/2016 |
Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Lansdowne Road, Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 employed as Stockroom Manager from 1st June 2006 to 12th June 2015. He was paid €2,356.00 per month. He has claimed that he did not get minimum notice.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
On June 12 2015 the department store where he worked went into receivership. The Respondent was appointed administrator. In the redundancy package he did not receive his one month’s pay in lieu of notice. He is only making this claim now as he did not know he could claim until he heard about the judgment made by the labour courts for 64 union members of the store. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
Firstly the Respondent’s representative stated that the Respondent named in this case is not the employer. X Ltd (named) went into liquidation and the Respondent was appointed as Liquidator.
This complaint is misconceived.
Secondly this complaint is out of time. It was presented to the Commission outside the six month time limit allowed.
Thirdly there is no substantial claim before this hearing. Minimum notice was paid and they presented evidence from the Liquidator that it was paid.
This complaint is entirely misconceived.
Findings
Firstly I note that the Complainant did not attend this hearing and was not represented.
No complaint was presented at the hearing.
I find that this complaint has failed for want of prosecution.
Secondly and for completeness sake I find that the Respondent was not the employer is this case.
Therefore I find that this complaint is misconceived.
Thirdly I find that this complaint was presented to the Commission outside the time limit as per Sec 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Commission Act.
Fourthly I note from the evidence presented that the minimum notice which was claimed has been paid. This was supported by a letter of confirmation dated 19th August 2016 from the Liquidator which confirmed that they on behalf of the Complainant made application for minimum notice and that it was paid out of the insolvenv6y fund.
Therefore I find that this complaint is misconceived and that it fails
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that this complaint is misconceived.
Eugene Hanly
Adjudication Officer
Dated: 20 March 2017