ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011875
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Office Administrator | A Crash Repair and Auto Body Repair Service |
Representatives | Northside Resource Centre |
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00015756-002 | 13/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:03/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 worked as an Office Administrator with the respondent for 22 years. After a down turn in business the complainant was told there was no work, she was called in for a meeting with the owners and told that her job was terminated with immediate effect. The complainant is seeking her entitlements under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The respondent failed to engage. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant worked as an Office Administrator with the respondent, a crash repair and auto body repair service, for 22 years, starting on 12 June 1995 and ending on 2 August 2017. She was paid €577.50 gross per week. The complainant said that in June 2017 the business was going through a slack period resulting in late payment of wages to staff and some staff had been placed on a three-day week. On 12 June 2017 the complainant said that she asked the owner/manager about staff wages due, she was told that the owner did not have the money that was due and he told her, and another colleague, to go home and that they would need to sign on at their local Department of Social Protection (DSP) office. The respondent said that he would be in contact by Friday 16 June 2017 to let them know about their return to work arrangements going forward. That Friday came and went and there was no contact from the respondent. The complainant was in contact with her work colleague over the weekend who informed her that he had tried several times to speak with the owner/manager but got no answer. She received no further contact for the next week. On 21 June 2017 the complainant and his colleague went to the respondent’s business to get documents signed for the DSP. The complainant said that the owner was “very off hand” when questioned about when they could expect to return to work. On 27 June 2017 the three days wages owed to the complainant for early June were paid into her account. On 10 July the complainant made contact with the respondent looking for a return to work date. He informed her that things had not improved and that he could not give her any definite date for her return to work. On 2 August the complainant attended a meeting with the respondent at the company’s office and at this meeting she was told that things had not improved and that her position was being made redundant. The complainant said that this was the first mention of redundancy. The complainant informs me that after months of coming and going, she finally received her statutory redundancy payment on 15 December 2017 by the Social Protection Fund. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication nor did it send in a submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Relevant Law Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that, 4. Minimum period of notice (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— […] (e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks. […] Based on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant at the hearing, I find that the complainant was approximately 22 years’ service with the respondent, at the time she was dismissed on 2 August 2017. I am satisfied that the complainant’s claim is well founded and she was denied her statutory notice period of eight weeks. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 11 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress options. I have found that the complaint is well founded and I order the respondent to pay €4,620 (four thousand, six hundred and twenty euro) to the complainant as compensation amounting to eight weeks pay within 42 days of the date of this decision for the breach of Section 4(2) of the Act. |
Dated: 5th July, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act - compensation for the breach of the Act |