ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027840
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Clodagh Foley | Plaza Express Stores Ltd |
Representatives | Self-represented | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00035656-001 | 10/04/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00035656-002 | 10/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/04/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 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 complaint. On this date I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities.
Background:
The complainant submits that she was denied her statutory redundancy payments and was denied paid notice. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 25/2/2015 as a deli/ food counter assistant. She was made redundant on 30/1/2020 Her gross weekly pay was €362, net €320. She worked 35 hours a week. She submitted her complaints to the WRC on the 10/4/2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00035656-001:Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant seeks two weeks’ paid notice. The respondent manager telephoned the complainant 2 weeks before the company closed on the 30 January 2020 to advise her the pending closure. She did not receive written notice. CA-00035656-002:Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 The complainant gave evidence and took an oath as provided for in section 39(17) (a) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The respondent manager told the complainant two weeks in advance of the closure. There was no reference to trading elsewhere. The complainant requested payment of her statutory redundancy entitlements from the respondent following the termination of her employment (using the RP9 and RP77 Forms) but the Respondent has refused to make the payments to her. The respondent advised her that she was not entitled to redundancy, the reason being that she might be able to apply for an interview for a job in a new enterprise to be opened by the respondent at some future, unknown date. The shop closed on the 30 January 2020. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent though notified of the hearing failed at the allocated time and did not provide any explanation for his non-attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00035656-001:Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I find that the complainant was provided with two weeks’ notice in compliance with section 4 of the Act of 1973. I do not find this complaint to be well founded.
CA-00035656-002:Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 Based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant and in the absence of any contrary evidence, I find that the complainant was employed on a continuous basis without a break in service from 25 January 2015-30 January 2020 when her employment was terminated by the respondent due to a redundancy following the closure of the respondent’s business. I find that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 and based on the following: Date of Commencement; 25 February 2015 Date of Termination; 30 January 2020 Gross weekly wage; €362 Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts. |
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.
CA-00035656-001:Complaint under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I do not find this complaint to be well founded CA-00035656-002:Complaint under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 I decide that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended, in accordance with the following criteria: Date of commencement: 25 February 2015 Date the employment ended: 30 January 2020 Gross weekly remuneration: €362 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: July 27th 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Oral notice. Redundancy |