ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025176
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Book keeper / Secretary | Car Sales Company |
Representatives | Self represented | Anita Tallis, Solicitor |
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-00032000-001 | 05/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/02/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967,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.
Background:
The Complainant seeks payment in lieu of minimum notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she was employed by the Respondent from 12th February 2007 to 27th September 2019, on a wage of €300 per week. She received her redundancy payment but did not receive her full minimum notice payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant would be due six weeks’ notice according to her years’ service. €600 was paid to the Complainant on top of her redundancy payment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is common case that the Complainant was paid only two weeks’ notice pay, whereas she was entitled to six weeks payment in lieu of notice. However, redress under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 is limited to the actual statutory redundancy payment entitlement, based on the employee’s service. The employee’s entitlement to payments based on service, statutory minimum notice, or payment in lieu is governed by other statutes. This complaint is misconceived, and I find therefore under this Act, it is not well founded. |
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 have decided that this complaint is misconceived under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 and is not well founded.
Dated: May 15th 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Redundancy, Minimum Notice, Misconceived complaint |