ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00045453
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sofija Krascuka | Avia Capital Leasing Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Terry Gorry & Co Solicitors | Mr Stanislav Dobshevich |
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-00056312-001 | 16/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00056312-002 | 16/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00056312-003 | 16/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
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 complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2015 as a Junior Finance Manager. She worked an average of 40 hours per week and was paid €2,750 gross per month. The Complainant’s employment ended on 26 April 2022. The Respondent is a Russian aircraft leasing company.
|
CA-00056312-001 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant provided a written submission. The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation. The Complainant stated that there had been some discussion in the company about changes that might take place in relation to the status of the employees in April 2022. In a letter to the Complainant dated 25 April 2022, she was informed by the Respondent that the company had decided to terminate her employment from 26 April 2022. The letter stated that the termination of employment was due to circumstances outside the company’s control. The Complainant stated that the Company closed completely on 26 April 2022. There was no further communication from the Respondent after the letter of 25 April 2022.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided a written submission. The Respondent submits that it is willing to pay the Complainant the requested amount but has been unable to do so due to the absence of bank accounts in Ireland, EU and US due to sanctions, and the measures taken by the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, Germany, where the accounts of the Respondent have been maintained. The Respondent submits that it approached the Irish Central Bank for a licence to arrange the payment for the legal services associated with the ongoing WRC proceedings. The Central Bank of Ireland denied the Respondent’s request on the ground that the Respondent does not have any financial resources in Ireland. Therefore, the Respondent submits, despite the genuine desire to compensate its former employees for the termination of employment, the Respondent is simply stuck in a situation of being left without any financial resources and no way to pay at this stage.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
This is an unfortunate situation where the Complainant is one of a number of employees of the Respondent company left “high and dry” due to the sanctions imposed on Russian entities following the Russian government’s decision to launch a war against Ukraine. In the circumstances I find the Complainant was made redundant but did not receive a redundancy payment from her former employer, the Respondent. I find the Respondent is unable to pay a redundancy lump sum.
|
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.
Accordingly, the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 is allowed and the Complainant is awarded a statutory lump sum under those Acts, based on the following: Date of Commencement; 1 September 2015. Date of Termination; 26 April 2022. Gross weekly pay; € 687.50. The award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
CA-00056312-002 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not receive a statement of terms of employment which complied with section 3 of the 1994 Act. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent does not accept the case. |
Findings and Conclusions:
No evidence was adduced by the Respondent to support the contention that the Complainant had been issued with the required information. I therefore find in her favour. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €687. 50. |
CA-00056312-003 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she was not paid her salary for the months of March and April 2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent stated that the company was willing to pay this money in roubles but that this offer had been rejected. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having considered the evidence adduced I find this was an illegal deduction and the Complainant is due €5,500 in unpaid wages. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €5,500 in lieu of the wages not paid to her. |
Dated: 11th of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Redundancy payment, contract of employment, Pay |