ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008525
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Property Company |
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-00011208-001 | 09/05/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant alleged she was made redundant and was due a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed from 2001 to July 15th 2016. She was unsure of her actual start date as the company was taken over by another company. She advised she had been involved in a work place accident and was out of work for a few years prior to her redundancy claim and was on invalidity payments. When she sought to go back to work previously she was not communicated with by the Respondent. She worked 25 hours a week and earned 389.50 Euros per week. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was not present at the Hearing but submitted a response on July 5th 2017 to the claim. They also submitted a letter to the WRC dated October 2nd 2017 which was brought to my attention after the Hearing. In that letters the Respondents representatives, an accountancy firm, stated that the Complainant was not made redundant and the Respondent was contesting her claim for redundancy. They advised that the company ceased trading in July 2016 and had no funds to attend the WRC Hearing and would not be present. They advised the Complainant was not made redundant and that her employment ceased because she could not perform her duties due to being on invalidity pension . |
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 advance of the decision it is important to set out the sequence of events in this case. The Complainant submitted a claim on May 9th 2015 to the WRC. This claim was notified to the Respondent on My 30th 2017 by the WRC who sent in a reply statement on July 5th 2017 which stated, inter alia, the following “ Accordingly the above named (the Complainant) is/was in receipt of Invalidity Pension from the Department of Social Welfare. This automatically means that she was unfit/unable to perform her normal work duties. This is the sole reason for the termination of her employment. According to the Social Welfare “Invalidity Pension is a payment for insured persons who are permanently incapable of work because of an illness or invalidty”. The parties were invited to a Hearing on October 3rd 2017 and the Complainant was present and made her claim and the Respondent was not present.
By letter dated October 2nd 2017 to the WRC, and which was brought to my attention in the days after the Hearing, the Representative of the Respondent stated that the Respondent had no funds or assets to present itself at the Hearing and reiterated its position that the Complainant was on invalidity pension and was not made redundant. This letter was sent to the Complainant for comment by the Adjudicator on October 10th 2017 and the Complainant replied shortly afterwards, in an undated letter, stating inter alia “In My opinion I am still employed by Gannon Properties”.
The conclusion I have to reach from the documentation provided in this case is that the Complainants employment has been terminated due to her being unable to perform her duties or that she is still employed by the Respondent. It is not a matter for me to speculate on this issue or to decide upon it. However, what it does show, is that in the opinion of the Respondent, the Complainants employment terminated for a reason other than redundancy and the Complainant feels she is, in her own words, “still employed by Gannon Properties”. The conclusion therefore is that the Complainants claim for a redundancy payment is not supported by either submission from the Complainant or the Respondent and her claim fails accordingly.
Dated: 20.11.17
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Claim for redundancy |