Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sharlene  Heffernan

Sublimity Limited

Representatives

  N/A

 Maria Zapciu, McStay Looby Chartered Accountants (The Liquidators)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00044443-001

01/06/2021

The Complainant commenced employment as a Quality Specialist with the Respondent on 19 October 2020 and was paid a salary of €55,000 per annum. Following the closure of the factory in which she worked on 8 May 2021, she did not receive her full contractual notice entitlements.

The Complainant stated that there was a mutual obligation in her contract of employment whereby both parties gave 3 months’ notice to the other in the event of the employment being terminated by either side. She highlighted that this was a useful protection for both parties.

She stated that she was informed on 7 April 2021, along with all of her colleagues, that the factory would likely be closing but that there would firstly be a 30 day consultation period with the employees. All of the employees were subsequently informed on 8 May 2021 that the factory would be closing with immediate effect and that their employment was being terminated.

Following the closure, the Complainant did not receive her notice entitlement of 3 months’ pay in lieu despite it being stipulated in her contract.

The Respondent’s representative stated that the Complainant and her colleagues were sent home on 7 April 2021 prior to the Respondent entering into the required 30 day consultation period with them to see if any jobs could be saved. She said that at the end of this period, a decision was made to close the factory and the positions of the Complainant, as well as her colleagues, were made redundant with effect from 8 May 2021.

The Respondent’s representative did not dispute that there was a provision in the Complainant’s contract of employment stipulating that she was entitled to three months paid notice on the termination of her employment. She did state however that the Complainant received a payment of €600 in respect of her statutory notice entitlements, which was paid to her following completion of the IP1 form by the Liquidators.

Preliminary Points:

1.     The Complainant stated on the complaint form she submitted to the WRC that the name of the Respondent was Sublimity Therapeutics. When asked at the hearing if this was correct, she stated that she believed it was. When asked to verify this, the Respondent’s representative stated that the correct name of the entity was in fact Sublimity Limited. Both parties then agreed to change the name of the Respondent to Sublimity Limited.

2.     The Respondent’s representative also disputed the termination date on the aforementioned complaint form and stated that this should be 8 May 2021 and not 7 April 2021 as the Complainant asserted.

Specifically, the Complainant as well as her colleagues were informed on 7 April 2021 that a 30 day consultation period would be commencing. At the end of this period, they were told that the Respondent’s business would be closing and that their employment would be terminated with immediate effect. The Complainant agreed with this and the termination date was changed to 8 May 2021 to reflect this.

The Law:

The Law

Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 states:

An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

(a) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

(b) the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.

Findings

I note that it was not in dispute either that the Complainant’s position was made redundant or that her contract provided for 3 months payment in lieu of notice if her employment was terminated by the Respondent.

It was also agreed between the parties that the only payment received by the Complainant in respect of her notice entitlements was €600 which was paid to her by the Liquidators following completion of the IP1 Form and payment of this money to them by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation.

Given that the Complainant was not paid her notice entitlements in full, I find that her complaint is well founded and that she should be paid €13,150. This represents the three months’ payment in lieu of notice to which she is contractually entitled minus the €600 already paid to her by the Liquidator and referred to above.

I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Complainant should be paid €13,150 for the reasons outlined above. This amount is subjected to taxes and the normal statutory deductions.

Non payment of notice;