ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046814
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Cagla Aydin | Shannagh Bay Healthcare Limited |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint 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-00057644-001 | 11/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00057645-001 | 11/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00057645-002 | 11/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant says that she was not paid a redundancy payment when her place of employment ceased business. It closed on April 16th, 2023.
She did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The business closed due to severe operational constraints and financial difficulties which were affecting its viability. All staff of the nursing home were invited to a meeting which was held on March 15th, 2023, at which it was announced that all staff were being made redundant, so due notice was given.
In some cases, staff followed residents to these nursing homes as there is a shortage of HCA and utility staff within the industry.
However, since the complaint was submitted all outstanding payments due to the former employees of the respondent, including the complainant have been made. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for her failure to do so, and a related case with the same respondent on the same day was withdrawn by the complainant in that case, who the respondent submits was also paid her outstanding entitlements.
The issue is somewhat academic anyway as the complainant did not attend to present her case, but on the basis of the respondent’s submission to the hearing it does seem probable that outstanding issues between the parties have now been resolved.
Either way these complaints, CA-000057644-001 and CA-00057645-001 and -002 are not well founded and I find accordingly. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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.
For the reasons set out above complaints, CA-000057644-001 and CA-00057645-001 and -002 are not well founded and I find accordingly. |
Dated: 13th December 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
‘No show’ by complainant |