ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025120
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Redundant Employee | A Government Department |
Complaint:
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-00031883-001 | 29/10/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
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 was employed from 3rd April 2017 until 31st May 2019 when his position was made redundant. Due to the inability of his employer to pay his statutory redundancy entitlements he applied to the respondent for payment. His application was denied. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that he had continuous service with his employer from 3rd April 2017 until 31st May 2019 and that he was therefore entitled to a statutory redundancy payment when his position became redundant. He acknowledged that he availed of two periods of unpaid leave during his period of employment which were taken with the full consent of the employer and claimed that this should have no negative impact on his redundancy entitlements. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent claimed that the complainant did not have the required 104 weeks PRSI contributions to be entitled to a redundancy payment. It was also claimed that paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 does not state that any interruption of service can be included as part of the period of 104 weeks of continuous employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis of the evidence presented to me, I note that the complainant was found to be ineligible for a redundancy payment by the respondent because he was found not to be in insurable employment for some of the period that he was in continuous employment with his employer. Given that I am being asked by the complainant to decide whether or not the respondent was correct in deciding that he was not in insurable employment, I must have regard to Section 39(15) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 which states that “…the Director General shall not be competent to decide whether or not an employee is or was at the material time in employment which is or was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts.” Accordingly, I am not competent to decide whether or not the complainant was in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. |
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 am not competent to decide whether or not the complainant was in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. |
Dated: April 22nd 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|