ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034629
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Frank Ryan | Noel Hughes Plant Hire |
Representatives | Self -Represented | No Appearance |
Complaints:
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-00045674-001 | 16/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00045674-002 | 16/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00045674-003 | 16/08/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00045674-004 | 16/08/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/07/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The Complainant swore an affirmation and gave evidence at the hearing. The complaint was submitted by the Complainant to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16 August 2021. The Complainant claims that he did not receive the redundancy payment or payment in lieu of the statutory notice period. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment in 1994 with the Respondent. The Respondent’s business was initially run by Mr Noel Hughes’ father and later transferred to the Respondent. The Respondent’s business was described as a plant hire which contracted machinery to the local County Council. The Complainant operated a digger. He would attend the County Council’s yard at 8am and assigned a location to operate the digger. If the Complainant required parts for the digger he would phone the Respondent who would provide the necessary equipment. The Complainant confirmed that he was paid a gross sum of €435.59 and a net sum of €400 per week. . A payslip was presented at the hearing. He worked 39 hours per week. He had no break in service. The Complainant confirmed he had no contract of employment with the Respondent. Redundancy CA-00045674-001 and CA-00045674-002 It was the Complainant’s evidence that he received a phone call from Mr Hughes on 6 April 2021 enquiring where he was. Mr Hughes attended on the site that the Complainant was working on and told him that everything was getting too much. He explained that he was “taking the digger off the job”. Mr Hughes instructed the Complainant to return the digger and buckets to the Respondent’s yard. The Complainant stated in his evidence that he was shocked at Mr Hughes words and did not question him. However, he was not surprised by this announcement from the Respondent as he had been unable to contact him in the weeks before. The Complainant has tried unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to contact the Respondent since 6 April 2021 by telephone and attending at his yard. Minimum Notice - CA-00045674-003 and CA-00045674-004 The Complainant gave evidence that he was not paid any notice period but was paid for the remainder of the week of 4 April 2021. The Complainant confirmed he never received a contract of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. Having carefully reviewed the file I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Redundancy CA-00045674-001 I am satisfied based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant that he was made redundant from his employment by the Respondent on 6 April 2021. Redundancy CA-00045674-002 I accept the unconsented evidence of the Complainant. Minimum Notice - CA-00045674-003 I accept the unconsented evidence of the Complainant. Minimum Notice -CA-00045674-004 This complaint relates to the failure of an employee to give notice to an employer. In the circumstances of this claim, it is not well founded. |
Decision:
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.
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.
Redundancy CA-00045674-001 and CA-00045674-002 The complaint is well founded. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following details. Commencement Date: 02 January 1994 Termination Date: 06 April 2021 Weekly Gross Salary: €435.59 Weekly Working Hours: 39 Minimum Notice - CA-00045674-003 I find this complainant be well founded. The Complainant is entitled to minimum notice of 8 weeks based on his continuous service which will be taken into account under the redundancy calculation under CA-00045674-001. Minimum Notice -CA-00045674-004 This complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 16/08/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Redundancy – Min Notice – Uncontested |