ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029307
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Naida Dozo | Mark Doyle, t/a Acton’s Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00039329-001 | 21/08/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00039329-002 | 21/08/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00039329-003 | 21/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
On the week of the 16th of March 2020, in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic the complainant’s then employer approached her to discuss the possibility of her working from home.
He said that he would pay her until the end of March, on the basis of what the Government had recommended.
He asked her to consider it and let him know, as it was to be a decision for her.
Shortly after she confirmed that she wished to work from home, because of the rising incidence of Coronavirus.
The respondent confirmed that she did not have to come in to work the following day, so her last day was March 18th, 2020.
Two weeks later on the March 30th the complainant received an email from the respondent stating that the office was closed except for essential matters, and that her position was being made redundant.
She confirmed that she had no issue being made redundant and said she was entitled to redundancy payment. There was a discussion about when she completed her second year, which would have been on March 19th, or 20th, 2020.
However, she heard nothing further.
She also sought payment of holiday pay she says is owed, amounting to twenty-two days. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepts that the complainant was made redundant but disputes elements of the narrative set out by the complainant leading up to that event. In fact, she initiated the request to work from home to the respondent’s accountant and it was agreed subject to her continuing to work and concluding certain tasks. She did not finish this work and essentially terminated her employment on the afternoon of March 13th when the parties had the initial discussion about working from home.. It was for these reasons that she was not given notice, which the respondent accepts is due. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent has not disputed the complaints, although he takes issue with aspects of how the complainant has presented them. Complaints CA-00039329-001 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and CA-00039329-002 under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 are essentially duplicates and relate to the non-payment of notice.
CA-00039329-003 is the complaint regarding redundancy and it is accepted by the respondent that the complainant was made redundant.
The complainant referred to outstanding annual leave she claims was due. However, she had not submitted any complaint in relation to this. Her employment terminated on March 31st, 2021 and she submitted her complaints on August 21st, 2021.
The hearing took place on May 7th, 2021, and therefore she would face the obstacle of the statutory time limits in submitting a fresh complaint in relation to annual leave.
In any event, no complaint in relation to annual leave was before this hearing and therefore no finding can be made in respect of it.
The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment in line with the Redundancy Payments Acts in respect of her service between March 20th, 2018 and March 30th, 2020.
She is also entitled to payment of two weeks’ wages in lieu of notice. |
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.
Complaint CA-00039329-002 Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 is well-founded and I award the complainant payment of two weeks’ wages in lieu of notice.
CA-00039329-003 Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 is well founded and the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment in line with the Redundancy Payments Acts in respect of her service between March 20th, 2018 and March 30th 2020.
Complaint CA-00039329-001 Payment of Wages Act, 1991 has been addressed in CA-00039329-002 and is not well founded. |
Dated: 19th July 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Redundancy, Annual Leave |