ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Correction Order
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006980
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Retail Supervisor | A Grocery Retailer |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00009427-001 | 31/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
I make this Correcting Order pursuant to the authority provided under Section 39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act which allows me to amend a material particular in a Decision which has already issued and which requires an amendment.
This Correcting Order must be read in conjunction with the previous decision issued (Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006980) on the 23 November 2017, and corrects the date of termination to read 8th July 2016, rather than 8th July 2015 which was incorrectly mentioned in the original decision.
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 employed as a Retail Supervisor. She began her employment on 28th November 2006 and continued in employment until 8th July 2016. She was paid at the rate of €360 per week. She worked approximately 39 hours per week at the time of her redundancy. She alleges that the Respondent terminated her employment without paying her redundancy entitlements. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 31st January 2017
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she was provided with notice of her termination of employment by the Respondent on 4th July 2016 on the basis that the business was to cease trading on 8th July 2016. She submitted a RP50 form to the Respondent on 8th July 2016, the date of her termination. The Complainant stated that she has not been paid her Statutory Redundancy payment by the Respondent.
The Complainant further submitted that the business had changed hands on a number of occasions (namely on 17th February 2011, January 2013, and again in 2014 when the Respondent assumed ownership). The Complainant maintained her employment had been continued on each occasion and she provided letters where she had received a renewed contract on each transfer of ownership. The Complainant further submitted that on 21 March 2016 the Respondent advised that the franchise with the then grocery franchiser was to be terminated but that the Respondent intended to continue trading, which they did until the 8th July 2016.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Respondent made a written submission that they were unable to attend the hearing due to the cost of travelling. They submitted that when they acquired the business in 2014 they clearly indicated that the Complainant’s service was continued from the previous "owner", but inferred no other owner's prior to that.
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the submission made, I find that the Complainant was in continuous service from 28th November 2006 until her job was terminated on 8th July 2016 as the Respondent had ceased trading.
S7(2)(a) of the Act states an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed.
I therefore find that the Complainant was dismissed due to a redundancy.
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.
Based on the uncontested evidence present at the hearing, I find and declare that the complaint taken under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 is well-founded and is upheld. I find that in accordance with S7(1) of the Act the Complainant is entitled to a Statutory Redundancy lump-sum based on the following criteria:
- Date of commencement- 28th November 2006
- Date of Termination- 8th July 2016.
- Gross weekly wage: €360
Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.
This decision is based on uncontested evidence as the Respondent did not attend the hearing or make a submission to the Adjudication.
Dated: 23/011/17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006980
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-00009427-001 | 31/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 employed as a Retail Supervisor. She began her employment on 28th November 2006 and continued in employment until 8th July 2016. She was paid at the rate of €360 per week. She worked approximately 39 hours per week at the time of her redundancy. She alleges that the Respondent terminated her employment without paying her redundancy entitlements. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 31st January 2017
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she was provided with notice of her termination of employment by the Respondent on 4th July 2016 on the basis that the business was to cease trading on 8th July 2016. She submitted a RP50 form to the Respondent on 8th July 2016, the date of her termination. The Complainant stated that she has not been paid her Statutory Redundancy payment by the Respondent.
The Complainant further submitted that the business had changed hands on a number of occasions (namely on 17th February 2011, January 2013, and again in 2014 when the Respondent assumed ownership). The Complainant maintained her employment had been continued on each occasion and she provided letters where she had received a renewed contract on each transfer of ownership. The Complainant further submitted that on 21 March 2016 the Respondent advised that the franchise with the then grocery franchiser was to be terminated but that the Respondent intended to continue trading, which they did until the 8th July 2016.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Respondent made a written submission that they were unable to attend the hearing due to the cost of travelling. They submitted that when they acquired the business in 2014 they clearly indicated that the Complainant’s service was continued from the previous "owner", but inferred no other owner's prior to that.
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the submission made, I find that the Complainant was in continuous service from 28th November 2006 until her job was terminated on 8th July 2016 as the Respondent had ceased trading.
S7(2)(a) of the Act states an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed.
I therefore find that the Complainant was dismissed due to a redundancy.
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.
Based on the uncontested evidence present at the hearing, I find and declare that the complaint taken under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 is well-founded and is upheld. I find that in accordance with S7(1) of the Act the Complainant is entitled to a Statutory Redundancy lump-sum based on the following criteria:
- Date of commencement- 28th November 2006
- Date of Termination- 8th July 2015.
- Gross weekly wage: €360
Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.
This decision is based on uncontested evidence as the Respondent did not attend the hearing or make a submission to the Adjudication.
Dated: 23/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment |