ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008100
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Retail Assistant | Retail Outlet |
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-00010766-001 | 10/04/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00010766-002 | 10/04/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00010766-003 | 10/04/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 ] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was employed as a retail assistant with the respondent from the 1st.July 2009 to the 6th.Oct. 2016.She submitted that she was contacted over the phone by the respondent on the 5th.October 2016 to be advised of the termination of her employment .She submitted the respondent was in breach of the Redundancy Payment Act for failing to pay her her statutory redundancy.She further submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act for failing to pay her statutory notice on termination of her employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not contest the evidence of the claimant and acknowledged that he did not follow procedures in effecting the claimant’s redundancy.He stated that his business was in decline after 30 years of trading and was seeking a new tenant following which he would cease trading.He stated that he had been refused a loan for working capital by the banks – it had always been his intention to re engage the claimant but finances would not now permit him to continue trading. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
[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.
Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2012 Ref CA 00010766-01
Having reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noting that the respondent did not contest the claimant’s submissions I uphold the complaint and require the respondent to pay the claimant her statutory redundancy within 42 days of the date of this decision.
Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act , 1973 Ref CA-00010766-002, CA-00010766-003 (Duplicate Complaints)
Having reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noting that the respondent did not contest the claimant’s submissions I uphold the complaint.The claimant has acknowledged that she was paid one weeks notice and consequently I require the respondent to pay the claimant 3 weeks notice within 42 days of the date of this decision.
Dated: 23 March 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea