ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00023619
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A shop worker | A shop |
Representatives | Declan McHugh Sweeney McHugh Solicitors | Unrepresented |
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-00030181-001 | 12/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 and/or under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000following 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
Background:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent on 6th May 2016. She was made redundant with effect from 30th November 2018. She was given an RP50 form but despite contacting the respondent never received a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent on 6th May 2016. She received a letter from the respondent dated 23rd November 2018 terminating her employment with effect from 30th November 2018. She was given an RP50 form but despite contacting the respondent never received a redundancy payment and only received one week’s notice instead of her statutory entitlement of two. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was not represented at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing as the company was informed by letter of the hearing on 24th September 2019. The respondent made contact with the WRC on the morning of the hearing stating the reasons why she would not be attending. The respondent was written to on 18th November as follows; Following on from your application for a postponement of the above cases and your phone call to this office regarding you not being in attendance at the hearing scheduled on the 12th November ….., I have been asked to contact you looking for supporting documentation for your absence – establishing that it was unforeseeable and unavoidable. Please provide the supporting documentation within 7 days of the date of this letter. If no supporting documentation is provided or supporting document provided does not establish that your absence was unforeseeable and unavoidable, the Adjudication Officer may issue a Decision on the evidence received by the claimants in attendance at the hearing. No further communication or evidence was supplied by the respondent regarding her absence from the hearing. Accordingly, I find that the complaint in relation to the redundancy payment is well founded. The complainant raised the issue of minimum notice for the first at the hearing and therefore I cannot adjudicate on that complaint.
|
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.
The complaint in under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act is upheld and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the statutory redundancy payment calculated in accordance with the Act, based on the employment period from 6th May 2016 until 30 November 2018, and based on a weekly wage of €200.55 subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts. |
Dated: 22nd January 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Redundancy entitlement |