Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rachel  Byrne

Lolly And Cooks Limited

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

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-00042391-001

09/02/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00042391-002

09/02/2021

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

CA-00042391-003

09/02/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00042391-004

09/02/2021

The Complainant commenced employment on 20th May 2016 and was paid €202 per week. She was notified on 15th July 2020 that her position would be terminated by reason of redundancy. She stated in her complaint form that she did not receive either her statutory redundancy pay or her notice and holiday entitlements

The Complainant stated that she commenced employment on 20th May 2016 and was paid €202 per week. She was notified on 15th July 2020 that her position would be terminated by reason of redundancy but did not receive the payments to which she was entitled.

The Respondent agreed that the Complainant had not been paid her statutory redundancy entitlements and stated that this was a result of an oversight.

CA-00042391-001:

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 

Given that the Complainant stated that she was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy and that she did not receive her statutory redundancy payment and the Respondent agreed that this was the case, I am satisfied that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.

CA-00042391-002, CA-00042391-003 and CA-00042391-004:

I note that these complaints, which relate to alleged contraventions that occurred in July 2020, were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 9th February 2021 and that Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 states that:

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates

I also note however and that Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 states that

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

I therefore have discretion to extend the 6-month statutory time limit a 12-months from the date of contravention if I can be sure that “reasonable cause” for the delay prevails. The Labour Court established the test on the application of reasonable cause in Cementation Skanska v Carroll in WTC 0338 in 2003 wherein it was found that:

“there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present she would have initiated the claim on time.”

Given that no cogent reason was presented to me to explain the Complainant’s failure to present her complaint within the 6-month statutory time limit, I find that I have no jurisdiction to hear these complaints.

CA-00042391-001:

The appeal under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2014 is allowed and I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following the following facts established in evidence:

Start date: 20th May 2016

Termination Date: 29th July 2020

Gross weekly wage: €202

This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

CA-00042391-002, CA-00042391-003 and CA-00042391-004:

I do not have jurisdiction to hear these complaints for the reasons outlined above.