ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038794
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sheila Mulcahy | Garrett Martin/Marina Hayes t/a Confession Box |
Representatives | Self represented | Self represented on 23/03/23 |
Complaints:
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-00050598-001 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00050598-002 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00050598-003 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00050598-004 | 11/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00050598-005 | 11/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/12/2022 and 23/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, 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.
Summary of Complainant’s case:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 16th December 2019 to 9th May 2021 when the business closed. It was due to re-open on 11th May 2021 however the Respondent called in the staff on 9th May 2021 to inform them the business would not re-open and that all payments, including redundancy and holiday pay would be processed. Despite several assurances from the Respondent to herself and her colleagues, she did not receive redundancy payment or payment in lieu of minimum notice.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The hearing was re-convened on 23rd March 2023 to give the Respondents the opportunity to attend and state their case. At the hearing on 23rd March 2023, the Respondents stated that there had been a delay in processing payment to the staff in relation to redundancy and minimum notice, but it should be in train within weeks.
Findings and Conclusions:
The substantive complaints here are essentially that (a) the Complainant did not receive a statutory lump sum payment (Ref CA-00050598-001 and CA-00050598-002) and (b) she did not receive minimum notice or payment in lieu (ref CA-00050598-003 and CA-00050598-004 and CA-00050598-005). CA-00050598-001 & CA-00050598-002 – Redundancy Payments Act 1967 Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) provides for the general right to a redundancy payment provided that the employee “has been employed for the requisite period”. Subsection 7(5) provides for the definition of “requisite period”: (5) In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him (or her), laid him (or her) off or kept him(or her) on short-time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years. The Complainant stated that she was employed by the Respondent from 16th December 2019 to 9th May 2021. As the Complainant in this case has not been employed by the Respondent for the requisite period, I find that she is not entitled to a redundancy payment. CA-00050598-003 and CA-00050598-004 and CA-00050598-005 – Minimum Notice This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 11th May 2022. The Complainant’s employment ended on 9th May 2021 which is more than twelve months before the complaint was submitted. Section 41 (8) allows me to entertain a complaint within a period of twelve months but there is no provision in the Act for extension beyond that time. Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides: “Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 41 (8) provides: “an adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause”. I find the complaint to be out of time and I cannot therefore find it to be well founded. |
Decision:
CA-00050598-001 & CA-00050598-002 – Redundancy Payments Act 1967
As the Complainant in this case has not been employed by the Respondent for the requisite period, I have decided that she is not entitled to a redundancy payment.
CA-00050598-003 and CA-00050598-004 and CA-00050598-005 – Minimum Notice
I have decided that the complaint is out of time and therefore is not well founded.
Dated: 11th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment, not employed for 104 weeks, no entitlement. Minimum Notice, out of time. |