ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016192
Anonymised Parties: A Construction Worker (A) -v- A Construction Company
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00019866-001 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00019866-003 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00019866-005 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00019866-006 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00019866-007 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00019866-008 | 19/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00019866-009 | 19/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 had been employed by the respondent between April 2015 and December 2017 when it ceased trading. He earned €600 per week. The complainant agreed at the start of the hearing that a number of his complaints had been duplicated in error. Accordingly, complaints CA-000019866-005, and 009 were withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that his employer closed down at very short notice on December 21st 2017 and he was given notice of redundancy. He received his P45 in January and was told that he would be contacted in due course about his redundancy and other payments. However, this did not happen. Complaint CA-000019866-001 relates to wages not paid during the period December 25th and January 1st; a total of six days; €720.00 CA-000019866-003 concerns annual leave not taken or paid for on termination. This amounts to six days leave and three public holidays; a total of €1080.00. CA-000019866-005 is a claim for a redundancy payment based on his service from April 17th, 2015 to January 5th, 2018. CA-000019866-007 concerns the non-provision of the statutory statement under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. CA-000019866-008 is a claim for payment of notice of two weeks based on his service. He claims €1200.00. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the respondent was properly notified of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I was satisfied with the credibility of the complainant ‘s evidence. Regarding complaint CA-000019866-001 the period for which this claim arises is covered by the notice period. The complainant did receive payments on behalf of the respondent company via the UK Insolvency Service and these need to be discounted from the award. The amounts paid were UK£1,467.00 in respect of redundancy and UK£884.00 in respect of annual leave. I estimate the claim made in respect of annual leave under CA-000019866-003 to be €1080.00. However, this includes three public holidays which fell during the notice period and which the complainant did not actually work. Given the sterling payment of UK£884.04 (for which no detailed calculation was provided) there is no balance outstanding. I accept the complainant’s evidence that he was not given a statement of his terms of employment in compliance with the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. He is also entitled to a payment in lieu of notice of two weeks based on his service. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 CA-000019866-001 is not upheld for the reasons stated above. No payment arises in respect of CA-000019866-003 and it is not upheld. I uphold CA-000019866-006 and award the complainant a redundancy payment based on his service from April 17th, 2015 to December 21st 2017 and in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act, less UK£1467.00 already paid to him by the UK Insolvency service. I uphold CA-000019866-007 and ward him two weeks’ wages in the amount of €1,200.00 I uphold CA-000019866-008 and award the complainant two weeks’ pay in the amount of €1,200.00. Complaints CA-000019866-005 and 009 were withdrawn at the hearing and are dismissed. |
Dated: 11th January 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Redundancy |