ADJ-00005431

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005431

Parties

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	A Worker	A Chocolate Company

Complaint for Resolution:

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-00007647-001	15/10/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 39 Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 following the referral of the complaints 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.

Respondent Submissions:

The complainant has named the incorrect legal entity in her complaint form. The entity named is not a limited company and does not employ the complainant.

Both the complainant and the respondent worked for a third party company until the end of 2014. That company ceased trading in November, 2014. It was then that the respondent director formed a new company and as a favour to his previous boss said he would facilitate the payment for the complainant, which came from the chocolate company. He was adamant that there was no transfer of undertakings and that he made it very clear from the outset.

Complainant submissions:

The complainant stated that she has worked for a chocolate company since 2003. She carries out promotional type work for them at the airport. Her employment commenced through an agency. That arrangement changed several times over the years and she admitted that she didn’t always know who her employer was. Both she and the respondent director were employed by a third party company up until late December, 2014. She started working for the limited company in 2015.

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 and Section 39 Redundancy, 1967.

The complainant has named an entity on the claim form that does not exist in law. She is actually employed by a limited company and has been since January, 2014. Furthermore, I am satisfied based on the evidence of both parties that there was no transfer of undertakings from the previous employer to the respondent employer.

Accordingly, I do not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.

The complainant’s claim fails.