ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00036587
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Lakes | Ballinlough Refrigeration & Tail Lifts |
Representatives | {Self-represented } | {Mr Neil Jordan, Sales Director} |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00047767-001 | 21/12/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Paul McKeon
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint and dispute 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. The hearing was held in public and evidence was taken on oath pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, amending the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
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 6/04/2021 and the parties agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC would disclose their identities. All the evidence, submissions submitted have been considered herein. While the parties are named in this decision, I will refer to Mr Lakes as “the Complainant” and to Ballinlough Refrigeration & Tail Lifts as “the Respondent.”
The Parties represented themselves and did not call any witnesses.
Background:
This is a complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act alleging a breach in relation to not receiving the statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of employment or payment in lieu thereof. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted his complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 21/12/2021 alleging a breach of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 in relation to not receiving his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment or payment in lieu thereof. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that the Complainant received his statutory notice of one weeks for which he was not required to work but was paid. The Respondent also referenced and referred to a copy of the Complainant’s final pay slip as proof of final payment in lieu of the Complainants statutory notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Legislation 4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks, (c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, (d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks, (e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks. (3) The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply for the purposes of ascertaining the period of service of an employee and whether that service has been continuous. (4) The Minister may by order vary the minimum period of notice specified in subsection (2) of this section. (5) Any provision in a contract of employment, whether made before or after the commencement of this Act, which provides for a period of notice which is less than the period of notice specified in subsection (2) of this section, shall have effect as if that contract provided for a period of notice in accordance with this section. (6) The Minister may by order amend or revoke an order under this section including this subsection This is a complaint pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act alleging a breach in relation to not receiving the statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of employment or payment in lieu thereof. The Respondent advised the hearing that on foot of terminating the Complainants employment, the Complainant received his statutory entitlement of 1 weeks’ notice for which he was not required to work but received payment in lieu. When I asked if this was correct at the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that he had received the correct payment in lieu of his statutory notice which in this case was one week pay. As the Complainant in the present case was employed from September 2020 to July 2021 he was entitled to one weeks’ notice or pay in lieu of notice which both parties agree he did receive. Accordingly based on the totality of the evidence adduced I must conclude that the within complaint is not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00047767-001 Minimum Notice 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. I declare that the claim not well founded. |
Dated: 27th October 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Paul McKeon
Key Words:
Minimum Notice / statutory notice pay |