ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027196
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Lyndsey Maguire | Arsm Private Limited Hacketts Supermarket |
Complaint:
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-00034813-001 | 24/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
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 complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 17th November 2019 until 26th January 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says was employed continuously as a sales assistant with the company which had a number of stores from 1st September 2017. She was employed by a number of different companies during this period, company 1 from 1st September 2017 until 2nd December 2018, company 2 from 3rd December 2018 until 17th November 2019 and the Respondent from 18th November 2019 until 26th January 2020. She was given two week’s notice of closure of the shop. She worked 19 hours per week. She was not paid redundancy. She moved from another store to the shop in Rathangan. She is owed holiday pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent said he took over the store in October 2019 and it closed in January 2020. He couldn’t pay the wages of €12.50 per hour after tax. The staff were not happy as they were receiving minimum wage. He was told no staff were owed holidays. The Respondent said there was no written agreement with the vendor on the sale. The lease was assigned and payment for stock and equipment. He said the Complainant only worked in the store for a couple of months. She worked for a different company and shop. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have heard and considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. There Complainant claims she worked as a sales assistant in the same role for a number of years since 2017 and is entitled to redundancy from the Respondent following dismissal in 2020. She says she never received any payslips and is owed holidays. The Complainant wrote to the Respondent after the company closed seeking her redundancy. The facts are disputed by the Respondent who says the Complainant was employed in another store by another business until a few months prior to the store closing. At the hearing on 3rd February 2021, I directed both parties to provide documents in the form of payslips or other documents to support their submissions. No documents have been received from either party. The Complainant claims payment of redundancy pursuant to S39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967- 2012, in the circumstances I find the complaint is not well founded as it is not proven. |
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.
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.
The complaint is not well founded as it is not proven. |
Dated: September 30th 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Complaint not proven |