Complainant

Respondent

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Post Office/ Shop Worker

A Post Office

Representatives

In person

No appearance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00023927-001

08/12/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984.

CA-00023927-002

08/12/2018

Post office/retail shop closed in December 2016. Complainant had worked there since 1997. She brought her complaint 4 days before the period of 104 weeks since her dismissal, had expired. As she was outside the 52 week time limit she sought to extend the time to bring her complaint on grounds of reasonable cause. There was no appearance by the Respondent.

1.       My employer was a post office and retail shop in a small midlands town.

2.       I was employed in the shop from 25 June 1997 and my employment ended on 12 December 2016.

3.       When the post master died in 2015 my employer’s name changed to the name of the Respondent cited on this complaint, however there was no interruption of my employment, I had never missed a day for sick leave, my pay remained the same and my terms and conditions remained the same. For this reason, I say that a transfer of undertaking occurred in December 2015 and that my employment should be considered to be continuous from June 1997 to December 2016.

4.       My employer was a small family business and I understood at all times that once the business shut down that the employees would be paid their redundancy payment. I left this up to the family to organise and they told us that it would be done.

5.       For this reason I am applying for an extension of time (from the usual 52 weeks to 104 weeks) based on my reasonable belief that the employer was organising the redundancy payment to be made.

6.       I worked for my employer for over twenty years and I believe that I should receive a redundancy payment.

7.       My gross pay was €219.00 per week.

No appearance

In relation to CA-00023927-001, I do not find this complaint to be well founded in that it is a duplication of the redundancy complaint as set out in CA-00023927-002 and I proceed to deal with the entire of the complaint under this latter complaint number. CA-00023927-002. I find that reasonable cause for the delay in instituting this complaint has been demonstrated. The Complainant was led to understand that her redundancy payment would be organised by her employer and yet this did not occur until after 52 weeks had passed. On 12 April 2018 the son of the previous owner assisted her in filling out the application to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. In these circumstances I am satisfied that reasonable cause existed for the 103 week delay in bringing her complaint. Ultimately on 19 June 2018 the Department turned her application down on the basis that the complaint was out of time because it exceeded 52 weeks. In a submission filed at the WRC hearing the Department maintained their view that the complaint was out of time but conceded that a WRC adjudication officer’s decision might vary from this in that unlike the WRC they had no jurisdiction either to extend time nor to determine whether a transfer of undertaking occurred in December 2015. (section 24 (2A) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967). I am satisfied that a transfer of undertaking occurred in December 2015 and that the commencement date of her employment was 25 June 1997 and the end date of her employment was 12 December 2016. I find that the complaint for a redundancy payment is well founded and that the Complainant is entitled to a lump sum redundancy payment based on a gross weekly wage of €219.00 and based on continuous employment, which was insurable for the purposes of the Social Welfare legislation, for the duration of her employment