ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024327
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Shop Assistant | A Shop |
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-00030911-001 | 13/09/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00030911-002 | 13/09/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00030911-003 | 13/09/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00030911-004 | 13/09/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 details that she did not receive redundancy payment, did not receive details of inability to pay, her representative was not properly consulted in relation to the collective redundancy and that her representative was not supplied with all information in relation to a collective redundancy. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00030911-001
The complainant worked with the respondent from 1st November 1999 until her employment ceased on 6th March 2019 owing to the business closing down and her weekly gross was €410.
The owner of the business Mr A had stepped down from the business a few years previously owing to ill health and his daughter Ms B took over.
The complainant knew that the business would eventually close but was never informed when exactly it would close and found out from other customers on a Monday that it was closing on the Wednesday which was upsetting. Despite repeated requests the complainant has not received her redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00030911-001
The respondent did not attend the hearing.
The respondent advised the WRC that the owner suffered ill-health and that redundancy would be paid through the sale of the business. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00030911-001
The respondent did not attend and confirmed that the business closed. Section 7(1) provides that: An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided— (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date.
Having heard the evidence I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Date of Commencement: 1 November 1999 Date of Termination: 6 March 2019 Gross Weekly Pay: €410
This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00030911-002
The complainant expressed concerns that the respondent would not pay redundancy and requested a statement of affairs to be provided should she be required to claim from the Employers’ Insolvency Fund. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00030911-002
The respondent did not attend.
The respondent advised the WRC prior to the hearing that the owner Mr A suffered ill-health and that redundancy would be paid through the sale of the business.
|
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00030911-002
The respondent did not attend. The complainant expressed her concerns that she would not receive redundancy payment. No evidence was provided to support a complaint of insolvency.
At this time I have no jurisdiction to consider this complaint and deem it not well-founded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-0003091-003
The complainant detailed that her representative was not properly consulted in relation to a proposed collective redundancy which affected the complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00030911-003
The respondent did not attend.
The respondent advised the WRC prior to the hearing that the owner Mr A suffered ill-health and that redundancy would be paid through the sale of the business.
|
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00030911-003
The complainant detailed that her representative was not consulted with in relation to the proposed redundancies
The respondent did not attend.
It is set out that, ‘ collective redundancies ’ means dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual concerned where in any period of 30 consecutive days the number of such dismissals is — (a) at least 5 in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 50 employees, (b) at least 10 in an establishment normally employing at least 50 but less than 100 employees, (c) at least ten per cent. of the number of employees in an establishment normally employing at least 100 but less than 300 employees, and (d) at least 30 in an establishment normally employing 300 or more employees.
There were less than 20 employees employed by the respondent. Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 does not apply in the case before me and I declare the claim not well founded. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00030911-001
The complainant detailed that her representative was not given all the relevant information relating to the collective redundancies. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00030911-001
The respondent did not attend.
The respondent advised the WRC prior to the hearing that the owner Mr A suffered ill-health and that redundancy would be paid through the sale of the business. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00030911-001
The complainant detailed that her representative was not given all the relevant information relating to the collective redundancies.
The respondent did not attend.
It is set out that, ‘ collective redundancies ’ means dismissals effected by an employer for one or more reasons not related to the individual concerned where in any period of 30 consecutive days the number of such dismissals is — (a) at least 5 in an establishment normally employing more than 20 and less than 50 employees, (b) at least 10 in an establishment normally employing at least 50 but less than 100 employees, (c) at least ten per cent. of the number of employees in an establishment normally employing at least 100 but less than 300 employees, and (d) at least 30 in an establishment normally employing 300 or more employees.
There were less than 20 employees employed by the respondent. Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 does not apply in the case before me and I declare the claim not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
CA-00030911-001 I find that the appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Date of Commencement: 1 November 1999 Date of Termination: 6 March 2019 Gross Weekly Pay: €410 This award is subject to the complainant having been in employment which is insurable for all purposes under the Social Welfare Consolidation Acts.
CA-00030911-002 I declare that the claim is not well founded.
CA-00030911-003 I declare that the claim is not well founded.
CA-00030911-004 I declare that the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 27-02-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Redundancy, collective redundancy |