ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043300
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Julie Garrard | Yee Hong |
Representatives | Self | The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00053458-001 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00053458-002 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00053458-003 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00053458-004 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00053458-005 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00053458-006 | 27/10/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00053458-007 | 27/10/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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 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).
In the instant case, there was one party only as the Respondent did not attend. Having waited a reasonable period of time, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I am satisfied that the Respondent was duly notified of the details of the hearing. The Respondent did not attend. A postponement had not been sought. Accordingly, I proceeded with the hearing.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant is a front counter worker and the Respondent is the owner of a Chinese restaurant.
The Complainant commenced working for the Respondent on 1 July 2008. Her employment ended on the 8 August 2022.
She worked 19.5 hours per week and was in receipt of a gross pay of €214.50 per week.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Respondents businesses was that of a Chinese takeaway.
The Complainant received a text message on the 8 August 2022 from her employer who was at Dublin Airport en route to China. It said that the takeaway restaurant was closing permanently. This was confirmed by the Respondent's daughter to the Complainant.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
No attendance
Findings and Conclusions:
Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 2(a) of the Redundancy Payments Acts. The business has ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed and her work has ceased. I am satisfied the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014. I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of her redundancy at the date of hearing.
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-00053458-001: This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant 8 weeks gross wages at a gross weekly pay of €214.50.
CA-00053458-002: This complaint is well founded. In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:
Commencement date: 01/07/2008
End of employment: 08/08/2022
Gross weekly pay: €214.50
Any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966.
CA-00053458-003. This is a duplicate of CA-00053458-001 and is not well founded.
CA-00053458-004. This is a duplicate of CA-00053458-001 and is not well founded
CA-00053458-005. This is a duplicate of CA-00053458-001 and is not well founded.
CA-00053458-006. This is a duplicate of CA-00053458-001 and is not well founded.
CA-00053458-007. This is a duplicate of CA-00053458-001 and is not well founded.
Dated: 5th October 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Business ceased trading. Redundancy