ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012264
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Montessori Teacher | Montessori School |
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-00016296-001 | 13/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and 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 by the respondent as a Montessori Teacher from the 24th of September 2000 to the 31st of March 2017 when her employment ceased. She worked 20 hours per week and her pay was €250. She is claiming an entitlement to redundancy. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that she was given verbal notice on the 24th of March 2017 that the school was closing on the 31st of March 2017 and her employment finished on that date. She was subsequently notified that the company had ceased to trade. She requested redundancy and notice payments, but she was not paid. The respondent’s accountant sent her an RP 50 for completion which she duly returned completed to the accountant, but she was not paid her statutory redundancy entitlement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the evidence of the complainant, I am satisfied that the respondent company has ceased to trade and the complainant’s employment ended for this reason. S7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Acts 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— 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.” Therefore, I find that the complainant was dismissed for reasons of redundancy. |
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.
Based on the evidence of the complainant, I find that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of commencement: 24th of September 2000 Date of Termination: 31st of March 2017 Gross weekly pay: €250 Any award under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts. |
Dated: 12/02/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marian Duffy
Key Words:
Redundancy |