ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040406
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paula Keane | M.d. Pinnacle Systems Ltd t/a Pinnacle Electronic Solutions Ltd |
Representatives | Self |
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00051698-001 | 14/07/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00051698-002 | 14/07/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00051698-003 | 14/07/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, 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.
The Complainant was advised that, in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public and, in most cases decisions are no longer anonymised. The parties are named in the heading of the decision. For ease of reference, the generic terms of Complainant and Respondent are used throughout the text.
The Complainant was also advised that the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 grants Adjudication Officers the power to administer an oath or affirmation. The Complainant was sworn in.
Background:
It is the Complainant’s position that she worked a 16 hour week as an Accounts Manager with the Respondent on a gross weekly wage of €316.07 from 1 July 2015 until her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy with effect from 12 May 2022. The Complainant has submitted complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in respect of holiday pay and outstanding wages; under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 in respect of unpaid redundancy; and, under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 in respect of unpaid notice pay. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00051698-001 – Payment of Wages Act The Complainant submits she did not receive any wages after 24 March 2022 due to a problem with the Respondent’s banking set-up. The Complainant submits that she continued to work for the Respondent until 14 April 2022 when she was made redundant. The Complainant submits that she is owed three weeks’ wages which equates to €948.21 (€316.07 * 3). The Complainant submits that she is owed four weeks’ holiday pay which equates to €1,264.28 (€316.07 * 4). The Complainant submits that despite numerous undertakings from the Respondent to resolve the matter, she has not received her outstanding wages or holiday pay.
CA-00051698-002 – Redundancy Payments Act The Complainant submits that the Respondent phoned her on 14 April 2022 to inform her that he was going to close down the company and that she would be made redundant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not closed the company and has not paid her redundancy. The Complainant said that she sent an RP77 to the Respondent on 3 Mary 2022 but he has not communicated with her in regards to her redundancy.
CA-00051698-003 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act The Complainant submits that, on 14 April 2022, the Respondent phoned her to say that he had enough and that he would be closing the company within the following fortnight and that he was giving the Complainant her notice. The Complainant submits that she informed the Respondent that, as she was with the Respondent company for nearly seven years, she was entitled to four weeks’ notice which equates to €1,264.28 (€316.07 * 4). The Complainant submits that despite numerous undertakings from the Respondent to resolve the matter, she has not received her outstanding notice pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the oral hearing in relation to this complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00051698-001 – Payment of Wages Act Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that this complaint is well founded.
CA-00051698-002 – Redundancy Payments Act Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the Complainant was employed on a continuous basis by the Respondent from 1 July 2015 until 12 May 2022 when her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy.
CA-00051698-003 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Information Act provides as follows in relation to the minimum period of notice to which an employee is entitled on the termination of their employment: 4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks, (c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, … Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that she was employed by the Respondent for a period of seven years prior to the termination of her employment. Accordingly, in line with section 4(2)(c) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Information Act, I find that she is entitled to a four week period of notice. |
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.
CA-00051698-001 – Payment of Wages Act I declare that this complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant outstanding wages of €948.21 and unpaid holiday pay of €1,264.28.
CA-00051698-002 – Redundancy Payments Act I find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payment Acts based on her continuous and reckonable service in accordance with the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 1 July 2015 - Date of termination: 12 May 2022 - Gross weekly wage: €316.07 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
CA-00051698-003 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act I declare that this complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant four weeks’ notice of €1,264.28. |
Dated: 25-05-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Key Words:
Non-payment of wages, holiday pay, redundancy and notice. No show Respondent. |