ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026092
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Complainant | Franchise Operator |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
Complaints
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-00033119-001 | 16/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00033119-002 | 16/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00033119-003 | 16/12/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00033119-004 | 16/12/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
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(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The complaints are concerned with non-payment of statutory entitlements at or following the date of termination of employment in October 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that she was employed by the respondent from 6 September 2008 to 19 October 2019. She worked 35 hours per week at a rate of pay of €10 per hour. She did not receive a statement of terms of employment during her employment. The name of the respondent on this decision is the same as on the complainant’s payslips. On 19 October , the person she regarded as her employer arrived at the premises. She called the staff to a meeting at 5pm to inform them that the business was closing with immediate effect. Staff were informed that they would receive their outstanding wages the following week but that ‘they could forget about anything else’. The complainant sought advice from the Department of Social Protection and was advised to write to the Respondent sending her an RP77. This was sent by the complainant to the Respondent by registered post but returned dated October 29th, 2019. The complainant then approached the Citizens Information Service who then wrote to the Respondent on her behalf in a letter dated 27 November 2019. That letter informed the Respondent that the complainant was owed redundancy pay, holiday and notice pay and informed the Respondent that if an employer cannot pay redundancy or has gone into liquidation, it is possible to make application to the Department of Social Protection. There was no reply received. The detail of the complainant’s claim is as follows: Redundancy Payment s Act 1967,as revised: Two weeks pay per year of service for the period 6 September 2008 to 19 October 2019 plus one additional weeks pay. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997, as revised: The complainant contacted the Respondents Accountant who gave her the calculation of holiday pay owed to her in a text as €138.80 hours. As this figure is based on information held on behalf of the Respondent and is accepted by the complainant, the amount claimed €1388.00 unpaid holiday pay. Payment of Wages Act,1991. The complaint is of unpaid notice pay of pay for an employee with more than ten years service, as in the case of the Complainant who was employed by the Respondent for over eleven years. This amounts to €350 by four amounting to €1400. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No evidence of any kind was available from the Respondent. There was no evidence of insolvency or liquidation available at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Understanding that a business may cease trading for any number of genuine reasons. In this case, the treatment of the complainant with lengthy service for an employment of its nature and who informed the hearing of the support she gave to the employer, and knowing as the Respondent must, the complainants personal circumstances also described at the hearing, the complete disregard for the complainants rights and entitlements displayed when she was made redundant and subsequently in failing to engage with her correspondence and failure to engage with the Department of Social Protection are difficult to understand. In relation to the substance of the complaints, based on the available evidence,dates,P60s, copies of correspondence including a copy of the RP77, each of the complainant’s complaints stand up to scrutiny as determined in the Decisions set out below. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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.
Redundancy Payments Act 1967,as amended, The complainants appeal against the decision of the employer not to pay her statutory redundancy entitlements is allowed. The amount payable to the complainant is calculated as follows: Date of Commencement of Employment : 06/09/2008 Date of Termination of Employment: 19/10/2019 Rate of Pay: €350 per week Total amount payable to the complainant by way of Statutory Redundancy subject to her being in insurable employment for the period of her employment is: €350 x 23.26 weeks= €8141 Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 as revised The complaint that the respondent failed to pay the complainant unpaid statutory holiday pay on the termination of her employment is well-founded. The Respondent is to pay the complainant €1388 in unpaid holiday pay. Payment of Wages Act,1991 The complaint that on termination of the complainant’s employment ,the respondent withheld payment of notice of termination of employment in contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991,is well-founded. The Respondent is to pay the complainant four weeks pay amounting to €1400 pay in lieu of notice. |
Dated: 21st August 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Unpaid Statutory entitlements on termination |