ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023905
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Restaurant |
Representatives | Chee Wei Yaw William |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00030419-001 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00030419-002 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00030419-003 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00030419-004 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00030419-005 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00030419-006 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00030419-007 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00030419-008 | 21/08/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00030419-009 | 21/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
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 complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment as a Chef with the Respondent, a Restaurant, on 30th October 2011. She worked 39 hours per week and was paid €580.00 per week. Her employment with the Respondent ended on 9th August 2019 when the Restaurant ceased trading. A complaint form was lodged with the WRC on 21st August 2019. |
CA-00030419-001 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she worked from the 14th to the 17th July 2019 but was not paid for these days. She is therefore owed four day’s wages. Neither was she paid her outstanding holiday pay. The total amount due according to the Complainant is €928.00. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. I find that an unlawful deduction has been made. |
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.
The complaint is well-founded, and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €928.00 |
CA-00030419-002Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she was not given any notice of the termination of her employment by the Respondent, nor was she given any payment in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. This matter is dealt with in CA-00030419-007 |
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.
The complaint is well-founded. This matter is dealt with in CA-00030419-007 |
CA-00030419-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not receive a redundancy lump sum when the Respondent ceased trading and she was let go. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. My calculations indicate that the Complainant worked for 7 years and 286 days, amounting to 7.78 years’ service. She is therefore due a redundancy of 16.56 weeks. As her weekly wage was €580, she is due a redundancy payment of €9,604.80 (16.56 x €580). |
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 complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant a sum of €9,604.80 as a redundancy lump sum. |
CA-00030419-004 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay redundancy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. |
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 complaint is well-founded. |
CA-00030419-005 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that her employer did not supply her representative with all the relevant information relating to the proposed collective redundancies which affected her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. |
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 complaint is well-founded. |
CA-00030419-006 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that the Respondent did not supply the Minister with a copy of the proscribed information in writing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. |
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 complaint is well-founded. |
CA-00030419-007 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not receive a notice or pay in lieu of her notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of the Respondent’s evidence and on the balance of probability I accept the evidence of the Complainant. I find section 12 of the Act was contravened by the employer in relation to the Complainant and that she should be compensated for the loss sustained by reason of this contravention. I find the Complainant had been in continuous service with the Respondent for more than five but less than 10 years. The Complainant was therefore entitled to four weeks’ notice. |
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.
The complaint is well-founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2,320.00 in lieu of her notice. |
CA-00030419-008 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not get all her rights during the period of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant did not have a notice period and therefore I find this complaint to be misconceived. |
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.
The complaint is not well-founded. |
CA-00030914-009 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that she did not receive the minimum notice of termination of her contract of employment from her employer. The Complainant did not produce a copy of her contract of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
No contract of employment was presented; therefore, it is not possible to conclude whether the Complainant’s notice period was a longer notice period than her statutory entitlement. |
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.
The complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 9th December 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Payment of wages, notice period, ceased trading, redundancy. |