ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035499
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Julita Jakubowska | Millconan Limited |
Representatives | Not represented | Not represented |
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-00046615-001 | 10/10/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearings: 28/9/2022 & 25/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2022following 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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.
At the remote hearing on 28th September 2022, I was not satisfied that the respondent was on notice so I adjourned the hearing. The rescheduled hearing was held by remote hearing on 25th January 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I 359/2020. The complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter who also took an affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.
Background:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent on 1st July 2013. The Café closed due to the pandemic on 15th March 2020. The complainant sought redundancy and submitted an RP77 redundancy form on 4th October 2021 and received no reply from the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent on 1st July 2013. Due to the pandemic the café closed and she was on lay off from 15th March 2020 up to 4th October 2021. She submitted an RP77 redundancy form to her employer on 4th October 2021 and received no response. The complainant was not able to contact her employer despite repeated attempts. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the remote hearing. I adjourned the initial hearing of 28th September 2022 to ensure that the respondence was on proper notice. I am satisfied that the respondent received adequate notice of the remote hearing held on 25th January 2023. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the hearing, the complainant gave evidence of her employment duration, lay-off period, and attempts to contact the respondent to obtain a redundancy payment. I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2022. This is separate to any entitlement the complainant may have under the Redundancy Payments (Amendment) Act 2022 regarding the 2020/2021 period of lay-off, which can be pursued separately. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2022 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I allow the complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 based on the following criteria: -Date of commencement of employment 1st July 2013 -Date of termination 4th October 2021 -Gross weekly wage € 312 -Non-reckonable break in service from 15th March 2020 – 4th October 2021 The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 14-02-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton
Key Words:
Redundancy |