ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015035
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Retail Food Business |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00019560-001 | 02/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00019560-002 | 02/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/03/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014and 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’s complaints relate to a claim for redundancy, including notice, following the closure of the Respondent’s business, a retail food outlet, in April 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she commenced work on 16 June 2007 in the retail food outlet, which was at that time, operated by a different owner. In November 2013, the Respondent took over the business, including all staff. The Complainant further stated that she was provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment by the Respondent when he took over the business. According to the Complainant’s evidence, she continued, for the next four years, in her role as a shop manager, reporting directly to the Respondent. The Complainant submitted that while she was on annual leave, in April 2018, the ESB cut off the electricity to the shop due to unpaid bills. The Complainant stated that, on her return to work two days later, she contacted the Respondent to seek his direction as to what would happen next. She submitted that she eventually received a response from the Respondent indicating that all staff, including the Complainant, were being laid off for the time being. The Complainant submitted that four weeks later, on 12 May 2018 she made further contact with the Respondent regarding the future of her employment, as she had heard nothing from him in the intervening period. The Complainant stated that she also asked the Respondent about redundancy, to which he replied that he had no money to pay her. The Complainant also submitted that she provided a copy of the RP-50 redundancy form to the Respondent and requested that he sign same and also provide her with a letter indicating that he was not in a position to pay the redundancy. According to the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent signed the RP-50 all but did not supply the supporting letter in relation to inability to pay. The Complainant further submitted that she eventually stopped chasing the Respondent and submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the oral Hearing nor was there any response or contact with the WRC to any of the correspondence issued in relation to the Complainant’s complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence provided by the Complainant, I am satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation exists in this case and, as a result, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s complaints in relation to redundancy and notice are well-founded. Consequently, I find in the Complainant’s favour as set out in the decision below. |
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.
and
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.
Based on the evidence presented by the Complainant and in line with the considerations/findings as detailed above, I find that the Complainant’s complaints are well-founded and my decisions in this regard are as follows: CA-00019560-001 – Redundancy: I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment, the amount of which is to be calculated in accordance with Section 19 (Schedule 3) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and on condition that the complainant was insurable employment during the relevant period.. CA-00019560-l002 – Minimum Notice: I find that the Complainant’s complaint under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 is well-founded and I award her an amount of €2,280 representing six weeks’ notice in line with her entitlements under the Act. |
Dated: 16th April 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act |