ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016796
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-00021751-001 | 06/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced her employment with company A in March 2009. In May, 2017 she was offered a position in a separate company, company B. She believed that this was a promotion. Approximately one year after she commenced her employment with company B she was informed by the respondent that her position was being made redundant. There was some discussion about her moving back to company A however no formal written offer was given to her. The day after she was made redundant she came into work but was refused entry by the respondent. She stated that she wanted a formal written notice of her redundancy, which she got that day. The complainant is adamant that she is entitled to redundancy payment from the respondent due to the circumstances of the transfer from company A to company B. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with company A in 2009. In May 2017 she was offered a position in an entirely separate legal entity, company B, which after a trial period of three weeks she accepted. A P45 was issued from company A and a new contract of employment issued in relation to company B with a commencement date of the 22nd May, 2017. In 2016 the respondent won a large contract which they believed would increase their business exponentially. On that basis the respondent needed to up their resources. The complainant was offered a position in company B which she accepted after a three-week trial. Unfortunately, the contract did not bring the business to the respondent that they had anticipated and it soon became apparent that there was no need for the complainant’s role. Purely for financial reasons the responder decided to make that role redundant. The complainant was offered her position back in company A but she declined to accept that offer. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant is claiming that she is entitled to a redundancy payment from the respondent. She commenced employment with the above named respondent on the 22nd May, 2017. Her position was made redundant on the 25th May, 2018 S4.—(1) Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment. I find that the complainant does not have the service required by the Act and therefore is not entitled to a redundancy payment. The complaint fails. |
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 complaint fails.
Dated: 06/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly