ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021571
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Food Company |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00028474-001 | 08/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028474-002 | 08/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00029608-001 | 11/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00029608-002 | 11/07/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00029608-003 | 11/07/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced with the company in June 2017 as a duty manager and in April 2018 was promoted to store manager. She submits that her last day at work was 22 January 2019. She states that the company was experiencing financial difficulties and the company was dissolved on 25 September 2019. The complainant states that she did not receive her minimum notice. She further states that the company owes her 3 weeks annual leave which she was entitled to but unable to take. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent or its representatives did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the respondent company was dissolved on 25 September 2019. A dissolved company ceases to have legal existence and therefore cannot be a respondent to proceedings under employment legislation any longer. The Labour Court in Michael Gannon Landscaping Ltd. v Janis Golubevs, MWD126 held that: “The Court was informed that the respondent company has been dissolved. Consequently, the Respondent Company in this case has ceased to have any legal existence and its assets (if any) have been vested in the Minister for Finance by virtue of Section 28 of the State Property Act, 1954. In the absence of any statutory provision giving a dissolved Company a Iegal status for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Court determines accordingly.” In the circumstances, I find that I have no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint. |
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.
I find that I have no jurisdiction to deal with this complaint. |
Dated: 12th November, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Key Words:
No jurisdiction |