ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015499

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/10/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Ca-00020013-001

Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

Background

The claimant was employed by the respondent from the 1st February 2008 until the 24th May 2018. The claimant submitted that his employment location was closed in Bandon and that he was instructed to go to a location in Cork city

The claimant stated that it meant him driving one and half hours from his home to Cork and the cost would be excessive. He added that travelling to Cork location was not a reasonable alternative of employment and he requested that he be made redundant. The claimant submitted that the respondent could have transferred him to their Skibbereen location and that he would have jumped at that chance

The respondent for their part submitted that the Bandon location was only closed on temporary basis while the claimant was out on sick leave as the store required a minimum of 2 employees to operate. This was not a redundancy situation.

The respondent submitted that a position was available to the claimant once he was fit for work

Findings

I find that the parties made verbal submissions at the hearing.

I find the relationship between the parties somewhat strained and that this has led to the poor level of communication that existed between them.

I find the communication to the claimant could have been more specific with details why it was closed and that it was due to staffing levels (the claimant being out sick) at that time.

I find that when the claimant reported fit to resume work, he attended his normal work location on the 22nd May 2018 and waited for 3 hours for the premises to open. He stated that he received a voice message on his phone from the respondent to attend the location in Cork at 10am the following morning.

On the 23rd May 2018 the claimant submitted that he received an email from the respondent informing him that his (claimant) job awaits him in Cork and that the business in Bandon had been closed permanently.

I find based on the limited evidence as presented at the hearing a redundancy situation existed .

Decision

[Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I find the complaint is well founded and the claimant should be paid his redundancy entitlements for the period of his employment.

CA-00020013-002/003/004

Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Background

The claimant was employed by the respondent from the 1st February 2008 until the 24th May 2018. The claimant submitted that his employment location in Bandon was closed and that he was instructed to go to a location in Cork city

1. The stated that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on termination of employment or payment in lieu thereof
2. He did not receive all his rights during the period of notice
3. He did not receive minimum notice of termination of contract of employment from the respondent 
4.  

Findings

Both parties made verbal submissions at the hearing.

I find that the claimant requested to be made redundant and, on that basis, he is not entitled to his notice.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The complaint is not well founded and falls.

Ca -00020013-005

Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

1. The claimant stated that he was not notified in writing of a change to his terms and conditions of employment
2. the respondent does not keep statutory employment records

Findings

Both parties made verbal submissions at the hearing

I find that the claimant was informed to travel to the Cork location.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The complaint is not well founded and falls.

Ca-00020013-006

Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) regulations 2012 -S. I, N

The claimant stated as well as the additional travelling it would be costing him a lot on money.

Findings

The claimant is a manager and not a mobile employee.

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.

I find the complaint is not well founded and falls.

Dated:   20th February 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: