Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bridie  Duggan

Glamford Limited

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00045126-001

09/07/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00045126-003

09/07/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00045126-004

09/07/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st May 2009. The employment duly terminated on 29th January 2021, almost twelve years later.

On 25th June 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent had not paid her statutory notice, statutory redundancy and that she was not made aware of a a change to her contractual terms. By response, the Managing Director of the Respondent conceded the majority of these complaints.

A hearing in relation to these matters was convened for, and finalised on, 30th June 2022. This hearing was conducted 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. No technical issues were experienced by either side. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1st May 2009. On 29th January 2021, the Complainant was informed that the Respondent’s business had ceased to trade. As a result of the same, the Complainant believed that she had been made redundant and is entitled to a redundancy payment, and statutory notice.

The Complainant also state that the Respondent company changed during the course of her employment and she was notified of the same. She submitted that this constituted a breach of Section 5 of the Terms of Employment Information Act.

By response, the Managing Director of the Respondent conceded the Complainant’s claims. He accepted that she was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and statutory notice. He also accepted that the Respondent’s legal title changed during the course of the Complainant’s employment, and that the impleaded entity was the Complainant’s employer on the date of termination.

Section 7(2)a of the Redundancy Payments Acts lists the following situation as a valid ground for redundancy;

“…the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed”.

This section clearly describes what has occurred in this instance- the Complainant’s employer ceased to carry on business, effectively making her role redundant. Having regard to the foregoing, and the wording of the Redundancy Payments Acts, I allow the Complainant’s appeal.

It is also accepted by the Respondent that the Complainant did not receive adequate notice of said termination of employment, and that her terms of employment were not amended within the correct timeframe.

CA-00045126-001 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts

I find in favour of the Complainant and allow the Complainant’s appeal.

In the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information.

Date of Commencement:              1st May 2009

Date of Termination:                     29th January 2021

Average Weekly Wage:                 €423.36

CA-00045126-002 Complaint under the Terms of Employment Information Act

The complaint is well-founded and consequently I find in favour of the Complainant.

Section 7 of the Act (as amended) empowers me to award compensation not exceeding four weeks remuneration in respect of breach of the Act. Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented. I award the Complainant the sum of €423.36 in compensation for the breach of the Act.

CA-00045126-003 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

It is again clear that the Complainant is entitled to a payment of statutory notice on foot of her redundancy.

The definition of “wages” contained in Section 1 of the Act includes,

“..any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice”

In light of the same, a notice payment clearly constitutes “wages” for the purpose of the Act and the Respondent failure to pay the same represents an illegal deduction for the purposes of the same.

Having regard to redress, Section 6 provides that I may direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation not exceeding the amount due had the wages been paid. In circumstances whereby the Complainant would have accrued 6 week’s statutory notice, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €2,540.18 in respect of this breach.

Redundancy, Notice, Payment of Wages