ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028447
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Nurse | A Doctor |
Representatives | Ingrid Kaar Dublin South Citizens Information Service CLG | Did not attend |
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-00036054-001 | 07/05/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/09/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 commenced employment on 1st March 2010 as a nurse in a medical practice. She earned €344.20 per week. Her position was made redundant on 11th April 2020 but she did not receive a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced her employment on 1st March 2010 and earned €344.20 per week. She received an email from the respondent on 29th February 2020 entitled Redundancy Notice. The email stated interalia “This is to inform you that you will be finishing work with me on April 11, 2020”. Despite having subsequently requested her statutory redundancy payment on numerous occasions after 11th April 2020, the complainant has still not received the payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Despite having been informed via email on 13th August 2020 of the time and date of the hearing, the respondent did not attend to give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states: For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to – (a) The fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed, or (b) The fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish Having heard her evidence, and in the absence of any evidence from the respondent, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 based on the following facts established in evidence: Start date: 1st March 2010 Termination Date: 11th April 2020 Gross weekly wage: €344.20 |
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.
The complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014 is well founded and I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Start date: 1st March 2010 Termination Date: 11th April 2020 Gross weekly wage: €344.20 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 07-10-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|