Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Company (in liquidation)

Representatives

Did not attend

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00009067-001

13/01/2017

The Complainant worked as an Accounts Administrator with the Respondent, working a 25 hour’ week. She commenced maternity leave on the 12th May 2016 and six weeks later was advised by a work colleague that her employer had gone into liquidation.   She was not contacted by a Company representative but in early July 2016 she received a P45 from the Liquidator.  

The Complainant stated that her husband contacted the Liquidator to inform them that she could not be made redundant while on maternity leave.   Nevertheless, they proceeded to send her IP1 and RP50 forms to be completed for submission to the Department of Social Protection. Following several telephone calls, the Complainant contends that the Liquidator accepted that she could not be made redundant until her maternity leave concluded.

The Complainant alleges the Liquidator confirmed she would get her full entitlements when her maternity leave finished, including her notice payment, outstanding holiday pay and a statutory redundancy payment. However, when it concluded, she received one week’s notice and her holiday pay only. When contacted, the Liquidator explained that with less than two years’ service she was not entitled to redundancy.

The Complainant concluded by confirming that her service with the Company was less than the two years’ requirement to qualify for statutory redundancy (her employment commenced on the 24th November 2014 and ceased on the 12th November 2016).

She also accepted that given the facts of the case her claim for Unfair Dismissal may fail. However, she wanted the right to be heard to express her disappointment at how she believes she was treated during and after the period that she was on maternity leave. She stated that throughout what was a stressful period for her and her husband the representatives of the Liquidator were uncooperative, and failed utterly to recognise the effects on the employee when a company closes suddenly, especially during maternity leave.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Complainant accepts that as there was no employment for her to return to after her period of maternity leave, her claim for unfair dismissal may fail. A review of the Respondent’s correspondence issued prior to the Hearing date confirms that this was their stated position.

Involuntary redundancy is never a good time which can be exacerbated if the employee is absent from work due to illness or leave; as absence from the work environment may limit access to information that might be otherwise be available to employees, formally or informally, prior to the closure of a business. Post closure, when a third party acting in an official capacity (such as a Liquidator) is involved, affected employees expect affairs to be managed lawfully and with an appropriate degree of understanding. In the latter regard, the Complainant felt let down by the Liquidator, an opinion that was reinforced by their failure to attend the hearing.

Having considered the facts of this case and listened to the (uncontested) evidence of the Complainant, my decision is that as the employer company had ceased trading prior to the end of the Complainant’s maternity leave, the unfair dismissal complaint must fail.