ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011762
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accounts Assistant | Supermarket (in Receivership) |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
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-00015612-001 | 06/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 brought a case under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.
She started employment with the Respondent on the 3rd of November 2011. In the complaint form she noted that the Complainant ceased trading on the 9th of November 2016.
She also set out that she had received a notice of transfer of employment to a new company on the 1st of November 2016.
The Respondent in this letter set out how this was a transfer of undertakings and the name of the transferee and the basis of the transfer. It set out that her employment would transfer to the transferee and how her existing terms and conditions and full continuity of service would be preserved. The letter further set out that there were no legal, social or economic implications attached to the transfer and no measures envisaged for her terms and conditions of employment other than the change in the entity that employed her would change. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Despite the assurances she received from the Transferor, her employment was terminated by the Transferee and a P45 subsequently issued.
The Complainant only brought proceedings against the named Respondent who was the Transferor in the transfer of undertakings.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance for the Respondent at the hearing however they did make a written submission on the 20th of December 2017.
They referred to the TUPE letter of the 1st of November 2016 where the Complainant was informed that her employment would transfer to the Transferee on the 10th of November 2016 as part of the transfer of a business from the Receiver operating the supermarket to a different entity. It confirmed that the handover of operations took place on the 10th of November 2016.
The Respondents position was that it was in full compliance with its duties in respect of the transfer of the Complainant’s employment to the Transferee and that considering this and the fact that the cessation of employment took place following the transfer of the Complainant’s employment to the Transferee, the Respondent’s position that it was incorrectly named as Respondent in these matters.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant transferred to the Transferee which was not named in these proceedings under a transfer of undertakings before her dismissal. |
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.
The Complainant was no longer in the employment of the Respondent at the time of her dismissal. The claim against the Respondent was brought incorrectly. The compliant fails. |
Dated: 5th November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Transfer of Undertakings Correct Name of Respondent |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011762
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Bridie Dolan | Kinnegad Supervalu (In Receivership) Ltd C/o Deloitte |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
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-00015612-001 | 06/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 brought a case under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.
She started employment with the Respondent on the 3rd of November 2011. In the complaint form she noted that the Complainant ceased trading on the 9th of November 2016.
She also set out that she had received a notice of transfer of employment to a new company on the 1st of November 2016.
The Respondent in this letter set out how this was a transfer of undertakings and the name of the transferee and the basis of the transfer. It set out that her employment would transfer to the transferee and how her existing terms and conditions and full continuity of service would be preserved. The letter further set out that there were no legal, social or economic implications attached to the transfer and no measures envisaged for her terms and conditions of employment other than the change in the entity that employed her would change. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Despite the assurances she received from the Transferor, her employment was terminated by the Transferee and a P45 subsequently issued.
The Complainant only brought proceedings against the named Respondent who was the Transferor in the transfer of undertakings.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance for the Respondent at the hearing however they did make a written submission on the 20th of December 2017.
They referred to the TUPE letter of the 1st of November 2016 where the Complainant was informed that her employment would transfer to the Transferee on the 10th of November 2016 as part of the transfer of a business from the Receiver operating the supermarket to a different entity. It confirmed that the handover of operations took place on the 10th of November 2016.
The Respondents position was that it was in full compliance with its duties in respect of the transfer of the Complainant’s employment to the Transferee and that considering this and the fact that the cessation of employment took place following the transfer of the Complainant’s employment to the Transferee, the Respondent’s position that it was incorrectly named as Respondent in these matters.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant transferred to the Transferee which was not named in these proceedings under a transfer of undertakings before her dismissal. |
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.
The Complainant was no longer in the employment of the Respondent at the time of her dismissal. The claim against the Respondent was brought incorrectly. The compliant fails. |
Dated: 5th November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Transfer of Undertakings Correct Name of Respondent |