ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020472
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Hotel |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00027036-001 | 13/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 24/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 worked at the hotel as a chef until staff were placed on lay off and the hotel never reopened. The complainant’s claim is that she is owed redundancy. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant requested an amendment to the respondent name. The complainant commenced employment on 23 January 2017 as a chef. On 2nd January 2019 she was advised that she would be placed on short time work and thereafter she was advised that the hotel would reopen with new owners. Despite repeated emails to the respondent asking when she would return to work, the respondent never gave her this confirmation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the complaint. The Respondent did not attend the Hearing. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing, and in the circumstances, I find that their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unreasonable in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the respondent is not prejudiced by the amendment to the respondent name and will allow same. Section 7(1) provides that: An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided— (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date. Having listened to the evidence of the complainant, I find that the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds. I award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following, subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Acts: Date of Commencement: 23 January 2017 Date of Termination: 13 March 2019 Gross Weekly Pay: €375.28 |
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.
I find that the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds. I award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following, subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Acts: Date of Commencement: 23 January 2017 Date of Termination: 13 March 2019 Gross Weekly Pay: €375.28 |
Dated: 24th July 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy, respondent did not attend. |