ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006515
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Bar Worker | A Bar |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
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-00008709-001 | 11/12/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00008709-002 | 11/12/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014,following 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.
Background:
The complainant stated on his complaint form that he should have received redundancy and that his current/new employer did not ensure that his terms and conditions transferred from his previous employer following a TUPE. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00008709-001
The complainant did not attend the hearing to advance his case, and did not provide an explanation for his non-attendance.
On his claim form, he claimed that he never received redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00008709-001
The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing. A copy of the letter sent to the respondent advising of the hearing was returned with an explanation “moved gone away” . |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00008709-001
A previous adjudication hearing had taken place in relation to this complaint under a different adjudication officer. I note from the file that the complainant had been notified of this hearing. As the complainant did not attend this adjudication hearing, I decide that the claim is not well founded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00008709-002
The complainant did not attend the hearing to advance his case, and did not provide an explanation for his non-attendance.
On his claim form, he claimed that his current/new employer did not ensure that his terms and conditions transferred from his previous employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00008709-002
The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing. A copy of the letter sent to the respondent advising of the hearing was returned detailing “moved gone away”. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00008709-002
A previous adjudication hearing had taken place in relation to this complaint under a different adjudication officer. I note from the file that the complainant had been notified of this hearing. As the complainant did not attend this adjudication hearing, I decide that the claim is not well founded. |
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-00008709-001 As the complainant did not attend, I decide that the claim is not well founded. CA-00008709-002 As the complainant did not attend, I decide that the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 27th November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
TUPE, redundancy |