ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047469
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Margaret Dunne | Dr Declan Scanlon |
Representatives | South Leinster Citizens Information Service |
|
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-00058366-001 | 16/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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.
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.
Evidence was given on oath/ affirmation.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent and by his late father before him as a receptionist for the medical practice they operated in Tullamore, Co. Offaly.
She gave the date of commencement for employment as 7 April 1973.
The data her employment ended was 28 October 2022 due to closure of the practice.
She was in continuous employment in the Respondent medical practice for practically 50 years.
The medical practice closed due to the Respondents ill-health.
Despite various attempts by the WRC to contact him, the Respondent did not attend the hearing. The WRC was able to notify a member of the Respondent’s family of the complaint and gave the Respondent an opportunity to attend the hearing or appoint representative to do so on his behalf. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant confirmed that her gross weekly wage was €473. The Complainant on medical advice remained at home due to concerns about COVID-19 from the 13 March 2020. She sought to return to work with the Respondent from the 7 July 2021. She confirmed she was available to work and fully fit to return to work. She never did return to work due to the failure of the Respondent to engage with her. Her employment with the Respondent remained open. The Complainant was advised by a colleague that the Respondent’s medical practice was closing on 28 October 2022. The Complainant did not receive notification from the Respondent as to the ending of her employment or payment of her redundancy payment due to her. The Complainant gave evidence that she applied to the Respondent for a redundancy payment on the ending of her employment. She received no response from the Respondent and did not receive a redundancy certificate from him. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Relevant Law: This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014. The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must - (1) have at least 2 years’ continuous service; (2) be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts; (3) be over the age of 16; (4) have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and (5) not have received a lump sum payment. Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states: For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or Having heard the uncontested evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 2(a) above. 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. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: Commencement date: 7 April 1973 End of employment: 28 October 2022 Break in service due to illness: 13 March 2020 to 7 July 2021 Gross weekly pay: €473.00 The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department and is subject to the Complainant’s PRSI payments. |
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.
This complaint is well founded. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment on the following terms: Commencement date: 7 April 1973 End of employment: 28 October 2022 Break in service due to illness: 13 March 2020 to 7 July 2021 Gross weekly pay: €473.00 The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department. |
Dated: 25th June 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Redundancy |