ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009997
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Public House employee | An employer |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Nos. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013039-001 | 09/08/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00013039-002 | 09/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
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 complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
A hearing was scheduled for 20 December 2017 where the complainant was in attendance, however, the respondent was not. I noted that the address that the Workplace Relations Commission had sent the respondent’s notification of hearing was where the complainant had worked, which was closed and it was not where the respondent resided. I adjourned the hearing and asked the complainant to provide me with the most up to date address for the respondent. On receipt of those details the Workplace Relations Commission rescheduled the hearing. At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence on the second date, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent had been served with notification of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. I was satisfied that notification had been sent to the correct address, as provided by the complainant. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
Background:
The complainant is seeking her entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. The complainant also lodged a claim for payment of Minimum Notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced employment as a bar worker on 13 December 2010. She claims that she worked 10 hours per week on a continuous basis up until the end of her employment on the 29 November 2016 and was paid €100 gross per week. The complainant said that she received a telephone call from a work colleague that a Receiver had been appointed and had entered the building on the Tuesday before she was due to work. The complainant was down to work two days later and when she arrived to work, the whole area was closed down and the entrance was locked up. She said that she was unable to get into the building to collect her belongings. She claims that she made contact with her employer who said that he would sort everything out but to give him some time. She had to contact him again and he asked to meet up with her where she said he paid her, her holiday pay that she was due. She said he told her the business was finished, her job was gone and that he will look after the rest of the money owed to her. She claimed that she called to him at his home to sign some social welfare documents but he did not pay her what she was owed. The complainant said that she made several attempts to speak with the respondent to get information about her entitlements. However, there was no reply. Accordingly, she felt she had no option but to pursue a case with the Workplace Relations Commission. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not engage nor attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00013039-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 I am satisfied that all parties were put on notice of the hearing several weeks in advance. I am satisfied the respondent was on full notice of the hearing and has not been in contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to explain his nonattendance. Based on the foregoing I am satisfied that there was no reason before me to postpone the Hearing and not to continue my investigation into this case. The complainant gave uncontroverted evidence that her employment was terminated by way of redundancy on 29 November 2016. She was in receipt of €100 remuneration gross per week prior to her redundancy. I find as fact that the complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 13 December 2010 and worked there continually until her employment came to an end in November 2016. I find that there were no breaks in either her continuity of service and of reckonable service during the period of his employment. I determine that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts. CA-00013039-002 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The Relevant Law Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that, Minimum period of notice 4(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— (c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more and less than ten years, four weeks. […] Based on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant at the hearing, I find that the complainant has almost six years’ service with the respondent, at the time of the date she was made redundant on 29 November 2016. I am satisfied that the complainant’s claim is well founded and she was denied her statutory notice period of four weeks’ notice. |
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 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.
CA-00013039-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 I decide that, pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts, the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment calculated as per the following criteria: Date of commencement of employment: 13 December 2010 Date of notice of termination of employment: 29 November 2016 Date of end of employment: 29 November 2016 Weekly gross pay: €100 per week This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment. CA-00013039-002 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 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 €400 to the complainant as compensation for the breach of Section 4(2) of the Act. |
Dated: 02 May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Acts - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act – Bar worker – No notice given - entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment. |