ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
This is a Correction Order issued pursuant to Section 39(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
This Order corrects the original Decision in respect of the year the complainant’s employment commenced. This Order should be read in conjunction with that Decision, which issued on the 19th June 2019.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020588
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A security guard | A provider of security services |
Representatives | None |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027160-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
On the 20th March 2019, the complainant made a complaint pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 26th April 2019, on which occasion Jason Murray BL, instructed by Shanley Solicitors, sought an adjournment because of a director’s ill-health. This adjournment was granted, and a further hearing date scheduled for the 23rd May 2019. There was no appearance by the respondent on this date, although the solicitors wrote to say that they would not be attending as it was intended to put the company into liquidation.
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he started working for the respondent on the 17th March 2003. He earned a gross weekly wage of €396. The respondent lost the contract for security services at an office block on the 28th February 2019. The complainant heard that this was to happen through the grapevine. The respondent also lost a contract at a building site, so there was no work at this location. The respondent did not offer work any place else. The complainant raised his entitlement to redundancy with the respondent, who refused to engage with this. The complainant’s employment came to an end on the 28th February 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent obtained an adjournment to allow a director attend to contradict the complainant’s case. No director attended at the second scheduled date of hearing to give evidence about this matter or to contradict the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant gave a cogent account of his employment with the respondent. He gave evidence that the security contract at his ordinary place of work came to an end, as did the security contract on a building site. He gave evidence that there was no other work available to him at the time his employment came to an end. The complainant’s cogent account has not been contradicted by the respondent. It follows that the complainant has established his entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment according to the following criteria: Date of commencement of employment:17th Marcy 2003 Gross weekly wage: €396 Date of end of employment: 28th February 2019 |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00027160-001I find that the complaint pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act is well-founded and the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment according to the following criteria:Date the employment started: 17th March 2003Average gross weekly earnings: €396Date the employment ended: 28th February 2019This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment. |
Dated: 19th June 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020588
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A security guard | A provider of security services |
Representatives | None | Jason Murry BL instructed by Shanley Solicitors |
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-00027160-001 | 20/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 20th March 2019, the complainant made a complaint pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 26th April 2019, on which occasion Jason Murray BL, instructed by Shanley Solicitors, sought an adjournment because of a director’s ill-health. This adjournment was granted and a further hearing date scheduled for the 23rd May 2019. There was no appearance by the respondent on this date, although the solicitors wrote to say that they would not be attending as it was intended to put the company into liquidation.
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he started working for the respondent on the 17th March 2013. He earned a gross weekly wage of €396. The respondent lost the contract for security services at an office block on the 28th February 2019. The complainant heard that this was to happen through the grapevine. The respondent also lost a contract at a building site, so there was no work at this location. The respondent did not offer work any place else. The complainant raised his entitlement to redundancy with the respondent, who refused to engage with this. The complainant’s employment came to an end on the 28th February 2019. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent obtained an adjournment to allow a director attend to contradict the complainant’s case. No director attended at the second scheduled date of hearing to give evidence about this matter or to contradict the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant gave a cogent account of his employment with the respondent. He gave evidence that the security contract at his ordinary place of work came to an end, as did the security contract on a building site. He gave evidence that there was no other work available to him at the time his employment came to an end. The complainant’s cogent account has not been contradicted by the respondent. It follows that the complainant has established his entitlement to a redundancy lump sum payment according to the following criteria: Date of commencement of employment:17th Marcy 2013 Gross weekly wage: €396 Date of end of employment: 28th February 2019 |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00027160-001 I find that the complaint pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act is well-founded and the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment according to the following criteria: Date the employment started: 17th March 2013 Average gross weekly earnings: €396 Date the employment ended: 28th February 2019
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment. |
Dated: 19th June 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act |