ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035794
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Theresa Lynch | Martella Food Services Ltd. |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-represented | Company Director |
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-00046968-001 | 03/11/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, following 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. On 9/6/2022, I conducted a hearing in Lansdowne House.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
Oral evidence was presented by both the complainant and the respondent. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross examine on the evidence submitted.
Background:
The complainant submits that the respondent failed to pay her statutory redundancy on being made redundant due to the Covid – 19 Pandemic on 30 March 2020. She commenced work as a waitress with the respondent’s catering company on 01/03/2006. Her salary was €300 gross for a thirty-hour week. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 3/11/2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Witness 1.: the complainant. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The complainant worked as a waitress with the respondent’s catering company providing a dining service in Newlands Golf club. In November 2019 the company was informed that the franchise was ending, and the contract was being put out to tender. The company ceased offering its services on the 15 March 2020 due to Covid- 19 Government restrictions. The complainant had been on certified sick leave since December 2019. She finished on the 30th of March 2020. In June 2020 the respondent informed staff that the business was closed permanently as it had lost the franchise. The complainant submitted an RP 77 to the respondent and the respondent’s accountant and made many attempts to contact the respondent. She got no response. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Witness: Mr. Wang, Company Director appeared on behalf of the respondent. He gave evidence under affirmation. The company provided a catering service to the golf club in which the complainant worked. He had a contract with the golf club since 2004. The golf club told him in April and May 2020 that due to Covid -19 they did not know when a re-opening of dining facilities would be possible His company ceased to function in the golf club after March 2020.His company ceased to exist after May 2020 and has not resumed in any other guise since then. The company is not in liquidation. He does not contest the claim. He stated that he does not have any money He left the payment of redundancy monies to the complainant in the hands of his accountant and apologised for his failure to respond to the complainant’s attempts to contact him. He wants the complainant to be paid what she is due in redundancy payments. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find on the basis of the uncontested evidence of the complainant that the complaint is well founded. I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details: Commencement date: 1/3/2006 Termination date: 30.03.2020 Weekly salary: € 300 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
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.
I decide that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014, in accordance with the following criteria: Commencement date: 1/3/2006 Termination date: 30.03.2020 Weekly salary: € 300. This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 15th August 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Entitlement to redundancy payments. |