ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041640
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Leanne McConville | Seatown Taverns Ltd |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No Appearance |
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-00052770-001 | 08/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00052770-002 | 08/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. | CA-00052770-003 | 08/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. | CA-00052770-004 | 08/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The Complaint Form was submitted on 8 September 2022 to the Workplace Relations Commission.
Documentation was submitted by the Complainant.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
It was the Complainant’s case that she commenced employment on 10 September 2009. She worked 19 hours per week and earned €10.10 per hour. She stated her last day of work was in March 2020 before being put on lay off due to the Covid19 pandemic. The Complainant received the Covid19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment. Despite numerous attempts to contact the Respondent regarding her job in recent months she was unsuccessful. The Complainant did received initially reassurances from the Respondent that the premises was going to reopen once the pandemic however, she has been unsuccessful in her attempts to make contact in recent months. The Complainant completed an RP9 dated 17 August 2022 and sent it to the Respondent. There was no response from the Respondent. Documentary evidence was produced from Revenue to substantiating the Complainant’s claim. It was clear from that the Respondent never terminated the Complainant’s employment and yet she was on lay off for the requisite period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
I am satisfied that every effort was made to contact the Respondent and they were on notice of the hearing. After waiting a reasonable period of time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
On the basis there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent and having reviewed the documentary evidence and oral testimony of the Complainant I find that both complaints are well founded. |
Decision:
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.
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00052770-001 I find the Complainant is entitled to redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2012 on the following basis: Start Date: 10 September 2009 Period of Covid19 related Lay Off: 15 March 2020– 17 August 2022. Date of Notification: 17 August 2022 Termination Date: 28 September 2022(six weeks’ notice period) Hours Worked Per Week: 19 Hours Weekly Gross Wage: €191.90 This payment is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00052770-002 The Complainant is well founded. The Notice Period has been accounted for in the decision in CA-00052769-001. CA-00052770-003 There is no evidence before me that any application was made pursuant to Section 6 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction. The complaint is not well founded. CA-00052770-004 Again there is no evidence before me that any application was made pursuant to Section 6 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984. Consequently, I have no jurisdiction. The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 08/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Redundancy Payment |