ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025097
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A Gym |
Representatives | Self | Self |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00031864-001 | 28/10/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
Whilst the Complainant initiated her complaint to the WRC under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000, I am satisfied from the evidence presented that it is appropriate for me to decide this case in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Act [1967-2016]. I have exercised my jurisdiction accordingly.
Background:
The Complainant had worked for the Respondent on a part time basis between 9/1/2017 and 26/6/2019. The Respondent stated that it ran into serious trading difficulties and the Landlord of the premises changed the locks on the 26th June, 2019 thereby denying the Respondent access to the premises. The Respondent ceased trading on 26/6/2019. The building is now being used by another service provider operating the same type of business. This complaint was heard in conjunction with other complaints lodged by the Complainant which are set out in a separate decision – ADJ-00023394. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC on the 28th October, 2019 seeking payment of statutory redundancy. The basis of the Complainant’s complaint was that she had submitted an RP50 form to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) but that the Respondent had not co-operated with the process and had failed to provide the necessary statement of affairs to the DEASP. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that it had outstanding debts owed to Revenue and to the Landlord. The Director of the Respondent who attended the hearing stated that the company had ceased trading on the 26th June, 2019 and that it had been locked out of the premises by the Landlord. The Respondent stated that the business had no cash to pay any outstanding debts and that it could not access any of its equipment or assets due to the lock out situation which pertained. The Respondent stated that it does not have any funds to initiate legal proceedings to regain its assets – which are now in the control of the Landlord – and that in any event the assets would not discharge the liabilities owed. In respect of the Complainant’s claim for statutory redundancy, the Respondent stated that it had provided the Complainant with the necessary paperwork, that it was willing to assist in the process and that the Respondent’s accountant can verify the financial affairs of the business. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00031864-001
In the course of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that her statutory redundancy had been paid. |
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.
CA-00031864-001
I am satisfied that a genuine redundancy situation arose for the Complainant as and from the 26th June, 2019 due to the closure of the Respondent’s business. The complaint against the Respondent employer is therefore well founded. |
Dated: 18th August 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Anne McElduff
Key Words:
A Worker V A Gym |