ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030549
Correction Order
Section 39(16B) (d) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 allows for the correction of typographical errors in a Redundancy decision.
“(16B) Subsections (15) and (16) of section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply in
( d ) any other necessary modifications.”
Accordingly, the typographical error in the decision of mis stating dates
“Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2020 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week.”
Is now corrected to read
“Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2011 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week.”
Section 39(16B) (d) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 allows for the correction of typographical errors in a Redundancy decision.
“(16B) Subsections (15) and (16) of section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply in
( d ) any other necessary modifications.”
Accordingly, the typographical error in the decision of mis stating dates
“Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2020 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week.”
Is now corrected to read
“Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2011 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week.”
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030549
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tanya McMahon | Susan's Hair Salon t/a Hair Salon |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No Oral appearance / Written Correspondence provided. |
Complaint(s):
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-00040859-001 | 07/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In keeping with Section 39 (17) of theRedundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 the Complainant gave evidence under oath.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath would be required, and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
Background:
The issue in contention was the alleged failure of the Respondent employer to pay statutory redundancy to the Complainant. The Complainant worked an average of 16 hours per week for a wage of €260 per week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on the 10th February 2011 and the employment ended on the 28th February 2020. The Complainant lodged a redundancy claim with the local office of the Dept of Employment Affairs and Social Protection on the 10th September 2020. In subsequent correspondence/e mails the Respondent admitted liability (provided in written evidence) and stated that she had instructed her Accountant to process the necessary paperwork. At the date of the Hearing no progress had been made and the Complainant was requesting a formal Adjudication Officer decision on her claim.
|
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing in person as she maintained that she was unwell. By e mail of the 3rd June 2020 she insisted that she had instructed her accountant to process the necessary paperwork and that she did not “know what else she could do.” |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant gave oral evidence under oath and had relevant supporting documentation. The written/e mail evidence from the Respondent supporting the complaint was also in evidence. Accordingly, I deem under Section 39 of the of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 that the Complaint CA--00040859-001 is Well Founded. Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2020 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week. The exact details of the due amount (making allowances for any breaks in reckonable service) are as calculated, from their employment records by the Dept of Employment Affairs and Social Protection |
4: Decision:
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--00040859-001 is Well Founded.
I formally allow the Complainant’s appeal in regard to the non-payment of statutory redundancy
Statutory redundancy for the period from 10th February 2020 to the 28th February 2020 is legally due to the Complainant. The rate of pay was €260 for a 16-hour week.
The exact due calculation of the amount payable is as per the records of the Dept of Employment Affairs and Social Protection
Dated: 14th October 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Redundancy, Non-Appearance of Respondent. Oath under Section 39 of Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 |