ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013903
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Nail Technician | Nail Bar |
Complaint:
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-00018612-001 | 03/04/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/06/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 commenced employment with the respondent on 18 June 2015 as a nail technician. The respondent advised her that the business would cease trading on the 17 December 2017. The respondent refused to pay her redundancy payments. She worked 30-36 hours a week. She was paid a weekly average wage of €351. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 4 April 2018.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was employed as a nail technician with the respondent from 18 June 2015 to 5 December 2018. The respondent by way of letter of 27 November 2017, (submitted in evidence), advised the complainant that he could no longer fund the business in which she was employed. She requested redundancy payments from the respondent on 18 November. The respondent advised that he was unable to pay her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent though notified of the hearing details did not attend or give any indication of inability to attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 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 concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a) 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,” Based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, I find that a genuine redundancy situation has arisen. I find that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act. I find that her start date is 18 June 2015, her termination date is 5 December 2017and her weekly rate of pay is €351. Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under Social Welfare Acts.
|
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.
I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant her statutory entitlements under the statute |
Dated: 14th December 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Redundancy; uncontested evidence. |