ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038089
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aoife Core | Bidvest Noonan's |
Representatives | Self | Ruth Heenan, Ibec |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 18A of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00048732-001 | 17/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048732-002 | 17/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00048732-003 | 17/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048732-004 | 17/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048732-005 | 17/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
The complainant represented and was accompanied by her husband and a friend. The respondent was represented by Ms Ruth Heenan, Ibec who was accompanied by Ms Grace O’Malley, Ibec. Ms Linda Connolly, attended on behalf of the Respondent.
Preliminary Matter:
At the outset of the hearing the Respondent’s representative raised a preliminary matter in relation to the time frame. It was submitted that complaints with the reference numbers CA-00048732-001, CA-00048732-002, CA-00048732004 and CA-00048732 005 were out of time. This was accepted by the Complainant. The remaining complaint CA-00048732-003 is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. A further issue arose in relation to this complaint. The complainant dated the manual complaint form 29/12/2021 and the receipt of this was date stamped by the WRC as “Received by WRC Carlow 17/02/2022”. The Adjudication Officer undertook to review this matter and the hearing proceeded on the understanding that if the date of 29/12/2021 was verified then the complaint was “within time” but if the date stood as 17/02/2022 then the complaint would be out of time and the Adjudication Officer did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint. This matter is fully addressed in the Findings and Conclusions below.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Cleaning Operative with the Respondent. She commenced employment on 17/06/2013. She worked 15 hours per week and was paid €11.80 per hour. The Complainant was laid off due the COVID-19 restrictions. When the restrictions was not provided with the same hours when she resumed and as these did not suit her, she was placed on lay off. The complainant served the Respondent with the RP77 notice on 24/11/2021. She declined offers of redeployment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant accepted that the time frame in relation to the complaints with reference numbers CA-00048732-001, CA-00048732-002, CA-00048732004 and CA-00048732 005 were out of time but she was anxious to proceed with the complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The complainant outlined her case on oath and submitted that because the respondent could no longer facilitate her with the hours agreed and that other options were not suitable or convenient then she was entitled to a redundancy payment, and she submitted the RP77 form on 24/11/2021 to avail of this payment. The complainant confirmed her termination date as 05/01/2021. The complainant confirmed that the date she signed the form, 29/12/2021 was the same date she posted the form to the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s representative submitted that the complainant is not eligible for redundancy payments as she was offered two suitable alternative roles. The complainant was also offered the same hours as she held previously but she declined on the basis that it was too far from her home. The Respondent submitted that this was a reasonable offer as it was a 20-minute drive from her home address. on 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant accepted that the time frame in relation to the complaints with reference numbers CA-00048732-001, CA-00048732-002, CA-00048732004 and CA-00048732 005 were out of time At the hearing the issue of the time frame in relation to the submission of the complaint CA-00048732-003 – a Complaint seeking adjudication by the WRC under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 - was raised. The complainant submitted that she posted the manual complaint form on 29/12/2021 which was the same date as she signed it. The WRC office in Carlow date stamped receipt of the form as 17/02/2022. On reviewing the file, I note that the Complainant was issued with an acknowledgement letter on 02/03/2022 and this confirmed the date of receipt as 17/02/2022. Other correspondence from the WRC to the complainant noted the same date of receipt. There is no query from the Complainant in relation to any delay or any inaccuracy in relation to the date of receipt. The Information and Customer Service division of the WRC reviewed the matter, and confirmed that the form is stamped on the date of receipt by the WRC. There is no explanation for any delay and so the date of receipt is the date of 17/02/2022. This finding was brought to the attention of the complainant. She confirmed that she had no proof of posting or any means of confirming the date of posting. In view of the foregoing, I find that this claim was referred outside of the time limit set out in section 24(1) of the 1967 Act and I am not satisfied that the failure to refer the claim within time was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to decide the claim under the 1967 Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) 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.
CA-00048732-003: I find that I do not have jurisdiction to decide the claim under the 1967 Act. CA-00048732-001, CA-00048732-002, CA-00048732004 and CA-00048732 005 were accepted as being out of time by the complainant and are therefore withdrawn. |
Dated: 10/07/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Redundancy. Time frame Section 24(1) |