ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038816
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Miriam Purcell | St Johns Girls And Boys Infants School After School Club |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives | Victoria Stephens SIPTU Trade Union | Helen McShane Mason Hayes & Curran Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00049805-001 | 21/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00049805-002 | 21/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977 | CA-00049805-003 | 21/04/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
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 Complainant alleges that she did not receive the correct redundancy payment when her role was made redundant. It is further alleged that she did not receive her written terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant following the affirmation gave her evidence as follows: She commenced working for the Respondent on the 03.10.2016. The Complainant was never given a contract of employment despite asking for it several times. She was employed, with two others to run the after-school club. The children were taken over from the main school to her at the end of their school day. The hours were 1.40pm to 2.30pm. They were collected by the parents when they were collecting their older children from the school. If parents were late, the Complainant stayed with the children until they were collected or on occasion, they were taken over to the school to wait with the secretary until their parents arrived. All was going well until the Complainant was asked to attend a meeting on the 13.01.2022 to discuss how redundancies could be avoided. Many things were discussed at the meeting including Covid, the effect it was having, how to reduce the risks and how to avoid redundancy. The main issue was that the children couldn’t be taken over to the after-school because of cross contamination. Unfortunately, the situation didn’t improve, and the Complainant was informed that her role was being made redundant on the 31.01.2022. The Complainant was paid redundancy but did not receive her correct redundancy paid. She was paid € 1,850.33. That sum was made up of € 1,197.89 redundancy, € 412.00 notice and €240.44 holiday pay. The Complainant wasn’t sure how that was calculated. She doesn’t actually know if it is right or wrong. There is confusion in relation to the start date. One date is the 03.10. 2016 and another is 10.10.2016. The Respondent used the 10.10.2016 in its redundancy calculator and the Complainant on her complaint form stated the 10.10.2016. The date of cessation was never given to the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent accepts that there was no contract of employment. In relation to the contract, it was discussed over the years and eventually a copy was given to the Principal and the Chairperson of the Board to sign. The Chairperson signed it. Then the Principal of the school went on maternity leave and the contract was never given to the Complainant. The Complainant was paid her redundancy based on a start date of 10.10.2016, a cessation date of the 31.01.2022 with a weekly wage of €103.00. In addition, she was paid her holiday pay and her minimum notice. The Complainant has failed to particularise her complaint and was unable during her evidence to state how that calculation is incorrect. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA 49805 -01 The Respondent concedes the Complainant was never given a contract. On that basis I find that the complaint is well founded. I award the complainant four weeks amounting to € 412.00 CA 49805 -02 The Complainant alleges that the redundancy payment made to her in the amount of € 1197.89 was incorrect. The Complainant, despite several request to specify why that payment was incorrect and what the correct amount was, failed to do so. On that basis I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. CA 49805 – 03 No evidence was introduced in relation to this claim. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded and accordingly fails. |
Decision:
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.
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 49805 -001 The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant four weeks in the amount of € 412.00. CA 49805 -002 The complaint is not week founded and accordingly fails. CA 49805 – 003 The complaint is well not well founded and accordingly fails. |
Dated: 6th August 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll
Key Words:
Terms and conditions of employment. Redundancy. Start date. Cessation date. Calculation. |