ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051533
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Emma Brown | Black Pearl Offshore Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
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-00062422-001 | 22/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 WITHDRAWN | CA-00062422-002 | 22/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with 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:
This is an appeal of the failure of the former employer to pay statutory redundancy to the Complainant including a failure to complete the RP77. The complaint notice included a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. However, there is nothing on the form provided with the file which indicates a complaint under the 1991 Act. As the Complainant confirmed at the hearing that the adjudication is purely about her redundancy, the Payment of Wages Act referral is regarded as withdrawn and no decision is issued under that legislation. Notices of the complaint and the hearing were issued to the Respondent to the address where the Complainant worked in Ireland before it closed. The hearing was arranged as a remote hearing. The host for the hearing contacted the Respondent at the telephone number provided by the Complainant. The Respondent stated he knew nothing about the hearing, that there is no office in Ireland, and he would not be in attendance. The link for the hearing was sent by the WRC to the email address provided by the Complainant. There was no attendance by the Respondent and no request for an adjournment to a later date. From the emails provided by the Complainant, I am satisfied the Respondent was well on notice of the claim and the intention to refer a complaint to the WRC but did not engage in any meaningful way with the Complainant. On my direction, documents provided by the Complainant following the hearing were issued to the Respondent at the email address used to issue the hearing link. In all of the circumstances I am satisfied the Complainant and the WRC made every reasonable effort to notify the Respondent of the claim and the complaint and that issuing a decision is justified in the circumstances.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In her sworn evidence and in documents requested at the hearing gave the following details in support of her appeal. Commenced employment at the address provided on 08.01.2020 She was the only person employed at the office and in Ireland. The Complainant confirmed the Respondent name in this Decision as correct and the same as on payslip she provided after the hearing. Hours of work of 20 hours per week at an hourly rate of €12.70 per hour.€1219.20 per month. In January 2024, the person named on the complaint form informed the Complainant they would be closing the Company at the end of February 2024, for economic reasons. This was confirmed in a reference she received dated 12.02.2024. The employment ended on 27.02.24 On 16.02.24 the Complainant submitted the RP77 to the Respondent and followed up on 08.03 and 11.03. 24. The Respondent did not complete any documentation or make any redundancy payment. On 22.03.24 the Complainant submitted an appeal to the WRC. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There is no evidence of any engagement or recognition by the Respondent on the substance of the claim for redundancy. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the available evidence, which I found to be comprehensive and credible, the appeal of the Complainant must be upheld. The failure to complete the RP77 is to be treated as a refusal to pay the statutory redundancy due to the Complainant. Given this is a company operating in more than one country besides Ireland, given the relatively small amount of money due to the Complainant, and the excellent service provided by the Complainant as verified in an employment reference, the refusal to pay the amount owed is hard to understand. |
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-00062422-001 The appeal by Emma Browne against the refusal of Black Pearl Offshore Ltd to pay her statutory redundancy is upheld. On the basis that the employment is insurable for social welfare purposes, the calculation of the statutory redundancy should be based on the following details: Start Date: 08.01.2020 Finish Date:27.02.2024 Rate of pay: €12.70 per hour x 20 hours x 3 days per week |
Dated: 10th July 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Redundancy appeal |