ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037999

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Siobhan Flahive	Muirdrum Limited European Auctioneers And Estate Agents

Representatives

David Fitzgerald, O'Sullivan Reidy Solicitors

No Appearance

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00049416-001	30/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00049416-002	30/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00049416-003	30/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00049416-004	30/03/2022
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00049416-005	30/03/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/09/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,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:

I conducted a remote hearing 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.

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 Complainant agreed to proceed in the knowledge that decisions issuing from the WRC would disclose their identities.

The Complaint Form was received on 30 March 2022

Having waited a reasonable period time, there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceeded with the hearing.

The Complainant swore an Oath on a Bible.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant commenced employment on 26 May 1997 with the Respondent until 26 October 2021 as an Administrator.

She earned the sum of €632 a month and worked 14 hours per week.

CA-00049416-001 and CA-00049416-005

The Respondent’s business closed in March 2020 due to the Covid19 pandemic. She had been in touch on the phone and via text message with the Respondent throughout the lockdowns. It was her evidence that she would meet people in her area who were interested in properties which she would forward to the Respondent. However, the Complainant has not heard from the Respondent since October 2021 who up until that stage she was told it was a matter of wait and see how things worked out. At all times she believed she would be returning to work. It was her evidence that she called Mr O’Donnell of the Respondent almost every day in January and February 2022, but he did not answer. At the end of February 2022, when in town she met a relation of Mr O’Donnell’s who asked if she was upset now that the business closed. It was her evidence that this is the first time she heard about the business closing.

CA-00049416-002

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she did not receive her minimum notice of 8 weeks based on 24 years’ service.

CA-00049416-003

The Complainant gave evidence that she did not receive annual leave pay upon termination of her employment.

CA-00049416-004

It was the Complainant’s evidence that she 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.