ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027500
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Travel Agent employee | A Travel Agent |
Representatives | Richard Grogan & Associates Solicitors | Did not attend |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00035245-001 | 12/03/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00035245-002 | 12/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/02/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
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 was employed by the respondent from March 2005 until 25th May 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is seeking that he be paid his redundancy entitlements. A further complaint relates to an assertion that the complainant’s former employer breached Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Employment Act, 1977. The complainant is seeking adjudication under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations, 2000 in that regard. In supplemental submissions to the WRC post hearing, the complainant’s Solicitor sought to rely on the direct application of Directive 2008/94EC – (Employers Insolvency Directive) in support of its position that the complainant was entitled to receive his statutory redundancy payment from the Insolvency fund. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It was confirmed that the respondent organisation was dissolved with effect from 5th February 2020. The Adjudication Services of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has repeatedly held that where a respondent company is dissolved, the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The Labour Court in Michael Gannon Landscaping Limited v Janis Golubevs (MWD 126) also held as follows: “The Court was informed that the respondent company has been dissolved. Consequently, the respondent company in this case has ceased to have any legal existence and its assets (if any) have been vested in the Minister for Finance by virtue of Section 28 of the State Property Act, 1954. In the absence of any statutory provision giving a dissolved company a legal status for the purpose of proceedings under the Act, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Court determines accordingly.” I also note that the supplemental submissions of the complainant’s Solicitor relate to Insolvency and do not apply in circumstances where the respondent company has been dissolved and has ceased to exist. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint 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.
In all of the circumstances of the complaints CA-00035245-001 and CA-00035245-002 , I find that as the respondent company is dissolved, I do not have jurisdiction to hear the within complaints. |
Dated: 29th April 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Redundancy, Dissolved Company, Jurisdiction |