ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027681
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A waitress | A Coffee Shop |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00035368-001 | 21/03/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00035368-002 | 21/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/12/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 21st March 2020, the complainant lodged a complaint form to the Workplace Relations Commission. This was scheduled for remote hearing on the 17th December 2020. The complainant attended the hearing with a former colleague. The respondent company was represented by a director and her spouse also attended.
The complaint relates to the ending of the complainant’s employment, including her entitlement to redundancy and to outstanding pay. I indicated at the hearing that I would include the issue of outstanding notice pay due to the complainant at the end of her employment.
In accordance with section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 204 and section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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 worked as a waitress at the respondent coffee shop from the 1st March 2016 to its closure on the 8th March 2020. It is not disputed that a redundancy situation arose. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed that her employment commenced on the 1st March 2016 and ended on the 8th March 2020. She confirmed that her gross weekly wage was €383.25 and that there were no breaks in her service.
The complainant outlined that she was informed on the Saturday that the coffee shop was closing the following day. She outlined that they were not given notice as Revenue was seeking to close the business immediately. While she was aware the respondent was in difficulty, there was no meeting or notice about closing the business.
The complainant said that she and the staff asked about their wages and redundancy entitlement. The respondent said that they would sign the forms, but later refused to sign them. The complainant outlined that she was seeking a decision in respect of her redundancy entitlement and her official notice pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The director outlined that she never refused to sign any forms for the complainant. She outlined that a business partner left, leaving behind many debts. She attempted to resolve the company’s affairs but then had to quickly close the business. The director did not dispute the entitlement to redundancy and said that notice pay was not paid. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Unfortunately, the coffee shop operated by the respondent company had to close overnight, resulting in both the business’ closure and the termination of the complainant’s employment. It is clear that this is a redundancy within the ambit of the Redundancy Payments Act. It is accepted that the complainant was not paid notice pay. As the complainant worked for the respondent between 2 and 5 years, she has an entitlement to two weeks of notice pay (€766.50).
As discussed at the hearing, in cases of insolvency, employees may recover outstanding pay and redundancy lump sum entitlements from the Insolvency Payment Scheme or the Social Insurance Fund, under the terms of those schemes.
The following criteria apply in deciding the complainant’s entitlement to the redundancy lump sum payment: Date of commencement: 1st March 2016 Date the employment ended: 8th March 2020 Gross weekly remuneration: €383.25
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Decisions:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00035368-001 I decide that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act, in accordance with the following criteria: Date of commencement: 1st March 2016 Date the employment ended: 8th March 2020 Gross weekly remuneration: €383.25
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00035368-002 I decide that the respondent did not pay the complainant the two weeks’ notice pay due under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act and the respondent shall, therefore, pay to the complainant €766.50. |
Dated: 16th June, 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Redundancy Payments Act / lump sum payment Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act / notice pay |