ADJ-00007663

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007663

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Employee	Employer

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-00009887-001	23/02/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/08/2017

Venue: Ardboyne Hoel, Navan, Co. Meath

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under 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 an assistant from the 1^st of November 2011 to the 21^st of July 2015. She was paid at the rate of €267.60 per week. She worked 24 hours per week. She alleges that the Respondent terminated her employment without paying her Redundancy Entitlements. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 23^rd of February 2017.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated that she has not been paid her Statutory Redundancy payment by the Respondent when her employment was terminated on the 31^st of July 2015. The business ceased trading in December 2016. She stated that she was ill on certified sick leave after her employment terminated for a period of two years. She submitted medical certificates to confirm this. She stated that she had no break in her continuity of employment in the period from the 1^st of November 2011 to the 31^st of July 2015. She is aware that she filed her complaint outside the 6 month and 12 month time limit because of her illness. She sought an extension of the time limit because her illness covered a period of two years. The complainant sought a favourable decision that she was entitled to her Statutory Redundancy.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was not present of represented at the hearing and they sent no submissions.

Findings and 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.

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. The Respondent was not represented at the hearing and sent no submissions. Accordingly, I only have the evidence and submissions of the Complainant to rely upon in these matters.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find as follows;

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent over a period of unbroken continuous service from the 1^st November 2011 to the 31^st of July 2015.

The Complainant’s normal weekly work of pay as €207.60 GROSS. The Complainant was not provided with an RP50 by the Respondent. The Respondent ceased training in December 2016.

I have decided to allow an extension of the time limit in relation to this complaint because the Complainant was ill over a two year period after her employment was terminated.

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 the complainant is entitled to a Statutory Redundancy lump-sum under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 based on the following criteria;

- Date of commencement- 1^st of November 2011

- Date of Termination- 31^st of July 2015.

- Gross weekly wage; €207.60

This award is made subject to the Complainant fulfilling current social welfare requirements in relation to PRSI contributions.