ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031992
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mary O'Connor | Alan Kingston T/A Robin Archer |
Representatives | Self | Breda English-Hayes and Daniel Teahan, MOET Accountants |
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-00042415-001 | 09/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00042415-002 | 09/02/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000 | CA-00042415-003 | 09/02/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint 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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. 359 of 2020, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
At the outset of the hearing the parties’ attention was drawn to the judgment from the Supreme Court in the case of Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 and the key points of the judgment were outlined to the parties. The parties were informed of the procedural changes applicable to the hearing of all complaints in light of the judgment. The parties were invited to present their views in that regard. Both parties indicated that they did not envisage a conflict of evidence arising during the course of the hearing. Both parties expressed a wish to proceed with the hearing.
No serious and direct conflict of evidence emerged in the course of the hearing and consequently there was no requirement for me to adjourn the hearing to await the amendment of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and related enactments to grant Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation.
Background:
The Complainant started her employment with the Respondent on 16th September 1996. She was paid €150 gross per week. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 13th March 2020. |
CA-00042415-001 - under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
| The Complainant submits that she started her employment with the Respondent on 16th September 1996. She was paid €150 gross per work. Her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy on 13th March 2020. The Complainant alleges that she did not receive her redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representatives did not contest the Complainant’s assertion. They conceded that the Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 16th September 1996 to 13th March 2020 when she was made redundant. The Complainant was paid €150 a week gross. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having considered all evidence presented to me by the parties, I find that the Complainant was employed on a continuous basis with the Respondent from 16th September 1996 to 13th March 2020 when her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy following the closure of the Respondent’s business. |
Decision:
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.
I allow the Complainant’s appeal. I decide that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payment Acts based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 16th September, 1996 - Date of termination: 13th March, 2020 - Gross weekly wage: €150 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
CA-00042415-002- Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay redundancy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representative did not contest the Complainant’s assertion. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant, in her WRC complaint referral form, alleged that she did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay the redundancy. However, there is no provision in the Act for an Adjudication Officer to hear a claim such as the complaint submitted by the Complainant. |
Decision:
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.
I have no jurisdiction to hear this complaint. |
CA-00042415-003 - Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
| The Complainant submits that the Respondent did not supply the Minister with a copy of the prescribed information in writing as required by the Protection of Employment Act, 1977.
The Complainant confirmed at the adjudication hearing that she was the only employee of the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representatives submit that the Complainant was the only employee of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Protection of Employment Act, 1977 places certain obligations on an employer who proposes a collective redundancy. ‘Collective redundancy’ is the making redundant within a period of 30 consecutive days, of a minimum number of employees, that minimum varying with the size of the establishment’s workforce. The Act applies to all persons in employment in an establishment normally employing more than 20 persons. There was no dispute between the parties that the Complainant was the only employee of the Respondent and therefore, no collective redundancy took place. |
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.
I declare this complaint to be not well founded. |
Dated: 15 June 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ewa Sobanska
Key Words:
Redundancy – collective redundancy - |