ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015430
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cabinet Maker | Furniture Manufacturer |
Representatives | Self | Regina Crosse, HR |
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-00019973-001 | 23/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly
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 was employed as an apprentice cabinet maker by the respondent commencing employment in May 2014. The employment was on a full-time basis and the complainant was paid €525.00 gross per week. The employment terminated in May 2018 and the dispute is in relation to the circumstances of that termination. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was informed on 23 May 2018 that he would be issued with a P45 form that day and that his service would be broken. The respondent required him to work for cash for 4 weeks The complainant was told that he would not receive any redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The complainant was an apprentice and as such is precluded by Section 7(4) of the Redundancy Payments Acts from making a claim for a redundancy payment. The termination of the complainant’s employment was due to the resignation of the complainant from his employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint was heard in conjunction with complaints under the Unfair Dismissals Acts and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act which were contained in ADJ-14960. Full details of the background to the termination of the complainant’s employment are contained in the decision in respect of those claims. My finding in respect of those complaints was that the complainant was unfairly dismissed. It therefore follows that I find that the termination of the complainant’s employment was for reasons other than 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.
Complaint No. CA-00019973-001: This is a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012. For the reasons stated above I find this complaint not to be well founded. The complaint accordingly fails. |
Dated: 3rd October 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly