ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021201
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A cleaner | A service provider |
Representatives | self | A company director |
Complaint(s):
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-00027827-001 | 17/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/08/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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 commenced employment on 27/05/2011 and transferred into the Respondent company when that company won a contract in which the Complainant was employed. The Complainant’s dates of employment are from 27/05/2011 to 29/03/2019. The Complainant worked 13.5hours per week for which he received gross wages of €145.80 gross. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 17th April 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Respondent lost the cleaning contract at the client site and the employees did not transfer to the incoming contractor as would be normal. The Respondent is satisfied that he owes a redundancy payment but will not cover the entire period of employment, he is refusing to honour the service with the previous contractor although it was a transfer covered by TUPE regulations. The Respondent had verbally agreed to honour the time spent with the previous contractor. The Complainant is also seeking payment of his statutory notice period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent alludes to the fact that when he took over the contract he honoured TUPE and has now lost the contract to a company who would not accept the transfer of the employees engaged on that particular site. The Respondent is willing to pay statutory redundancy for the period served in his employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the contract cleaning industry, it is accepted custom and practice that the incoming contractor accepts the transfer of employees at the time of the change of contractor, it is unfortunate that such a transfer did not occur in this instance. The employee (the Complainant) cannot become a victim of two contractors having a disagreement on whether TUPE applies or does not apply. It is for the contractors to sort this out. The Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on service from 27/05/2011 to 29/03/2019. The Complainant is entitled to 4 weeks’ notice. I now order the Respondent to make these appropriate payments to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint 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.
As outlined above. |
Dated: 16th September 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act. |