ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046021
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Katie Hughes | Hair and Beauty By Helen |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00056819-001 | 23/05/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00056819-002 | 23/05/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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.
When contacted by the WRC to arrange the virtual hearing the Respondent emailed the WRC on xx stating that she had not received the notice of the hearing , has ceased trading and is unable to make the related claims. I am advised by the WRC that the notice of the hearing was issued by registered post to the business address and was not returned as undelivered. As I am satisfied that the WRC made appropriate efforts to notify the Respondent in writing and later through direct contact regarding the virtual hearing, the hearing proceeded, taking the sworn evidence of the Complainant in the absence of the Respondent.
The name of the employer on this decision is as confirmed by the Complainant at the hearing. She described the payslips received as not official payslips.
Background:
This an appeal of the decision of the Respondent not to pay statutory redundancy pay to the Complainant when the business closed and when the Complainant submitted an RP77 to the Respondent.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 14.07.20. In October 2022 the Complainant was informed the business would be closing. The Complainants employment was terminated on 25.11.2022 The Complainant sent an RP77 to the Respondent on 7.03.23. She received no reply. When she contacted the Department of Social Protection, she was advised to submit the RP77 and to make a complaint to the WRC.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
In her email on 28.09.23 , the Respondent confirmed that the business ceased trading and she was unable to pay the claims. Other claims are with the Department of Social Protection. |
Findings and Conclusions:
All of the evidence and information confirms the Complainant has established an entitlement to statutory redundancy. I am also satisfied that she claimed the payment from her former employer in the appropriate fashion which the Respondent did not pay. The appeal against the decision of the Respondent is upheld. |
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.
CA-00056819-001 and 002(treated in this decision as one appeal). The appeal by Katie Hughes against the Respondents refusal to pay her statutory redundancy is upheld subject to the Complainant being in insurable employment during the dates as set out below. The relevant details for the purposes of the claim and the related calculation are: Date Commenced: 14.07.2020 Date of termination: 25.11.2022 Rate of Pay:€17399 Gross / 52 = €334.60 per week |
Dated: 10th October 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Appeal of non - payment of redundancy. |