CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision issued on 09/05/2024 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049542
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Practice Manager | Medical Practitioner |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00060905-001 | 09/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
The Complainant attended the hearing and represented herself.
I have exercised my discretion to conduct the hearing in private and to anonymise the parties in circumstances where the Respondent is recently deceased. I am satisfied “special circumstances” exist. Accordingly, I exercise this discretion pursuant to the provisions of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 which amends section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 by the insertion of the following subsections after section 17 and provides as follows:
“(17A) Proceedings in relation to any matter referred to an adjudication officer under this section shall be conducted in public unless the adjudication officer, of his or her own motion or on the application by or on behalf of the employee or employer, determines that, due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings (or part thereof) should be conducted otherwise than in public.
(17B) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Commission shall publish on the internet in such form and in such manner as it considers appropriate every decision of an adjudication officer under this section.
(b) In publishing a decision under paragraph (a), an adjudication officer may determine that, due to the existence of special circumstances, information that would identify the employee or employer in relation to whom the decision was made should not be published by the Commission.”
The Complainant gave her evidence on oath.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.
Background:
CA-00060905-001 This matter came before the WRC dated 09/01/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 02/05/2024.
The Complainant at all material times was employed by the Respondent as a Practice Manager. The Respondent at all material times was a Medical Practitioner.
The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 01/06/2017. Her employment ended on 30/04/2023. The Complainant worked 40 hours per week for which she was paid €1000.00 gross weekly. This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated, and she has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to her former role. The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where her employment ended on 30/04/2023 and she has processed her claim to the WRC on 09/01/2024.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00060905-001 The Complainant submits her employer sustained serious injuries in an accident in February 2023 as a result of which he was unable to work as the sole practitioner in the practice. The practice was forced to close on 30/04/2023. The Complainant submits she was informed by the accountant that the practice was by this time out of funds and overdrafts had been exceeded. The Complainant had remained on in the interim period between the date of her employer’s accident and the date of closure of the practice. The Complainant submits there was no income generated during this period as she continued to provide full administrative support ensuring all patients transfer to alternative clinics. The Complainant submits she remained on working in the clinic without payment after its closure on 30/04/2023 for 3 months until the end of July in order to help patients make alternative medical treatment arrangements and to wind down the clinic. The Complainant submits she received no income from the medical practice during this time and she did not receive social welfare payment during this time. The Complainant submits she emailed the Respondent in December 2023 to request his assistance attaching forms RP50 and RP77 for his signature, but she did not receive a reply. The Complainant submits she has only recently heard the Respondent has sadly passed away. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is recently deceased. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00060905-001 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 byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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 (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a differentmanner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained… 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. In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: Commencement date: 01/06/2017 End of employment: 30/04/2023 Gross weekly pay: €1000.00 The Complainant was made aware of the fact than any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966. The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department.
|
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-00060905-001 I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of her employer to pay a redundancy. I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria: Commencement date: 01/06/2017 End of employment: 30/04/2023 Gross weekly pay: €1000.00 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
|
Dated: 09/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Claim for statutory redundancy; anonymisation; special circumstances; |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049542
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Practice Manager | Medical Practitioner |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00060905-001 | 09/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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. The hearing was conducted in person in Lansdowne House.
The Complainant attended the hearing and represented herself.
I have exercised my discretion to conduct the hearing in private and to anonymise the parties in circumstances where the Respondent is recently deceased. I am satisfied “special circumstances” exist. Accordingly, I exercise this discretion pursuant to the provisions of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 which amends section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 by the insertion of the following subsections after section 17 and provides as follows:
“(17A) Proceedings in relation to any matter referred to an adjudication officer under this section shall be conducted in public unless the adjudication officer, of his or her own motion or on the application by or on behalf of the employee or employer, determines that, due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings (or part thereof) should be conducted otherwise than in public.
(17B) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the Commission shall publish on the internet in such form and in such manner as it considers appropriate every decision of an adjudication officer under this section.
(b) In publishing a decision under paragraph (a), an adjudication officer may determine that, due to the existence of special circumstances, information that would identify the employee or employer in relation to whom the decision was made should not be published by the Commission.”
The Complainant gave her evidence on oath.
No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.
I can confirm I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into this complaint.
Background:
CA-00060905-001 This matter came before the WRC dated 09/01/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 02/05/2024.
The Complainant at all material times was employed by the Respondent as a Practice Manager. The Respondent at all material times was a Medical Practitioner.
The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 01/06/2017. Her employment ended on 30/04/2023. The Complainant worked 40 hours per week for which she was paid €1000.00 gross weekly. This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated, and she has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to her former role. The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where her employment ended on 30/04/2023 and she has processed her claim to the WRC on 09/01/2024.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00060905-001 The Complainant submits her employer sustained serious injuries in an accident in February 2023 as a result of which he was unable to work as the sole practitioner in the practice. The practice was forced to close on 30/04/2023. The Complainant submits she was informed by the accountant that the practice was by this time out of funds and overdrafts had been exceeded. The Complainant had remained on in the interim period between the date of her employer’s accident and the date of closure of the practice. The Complainant submits there was no income generated during this period as she continued to provide full administrative support ensuring all patients transfer to alternative clinics. The Complainant submits she emailed the Respondent in December 2023 to request his assistance attaching forms RP50 and RP77 for his signature, but she did not receive a reply. The Complainant submits she has only recently heard the Respondent has sadly passed away. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent is recently deceased. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00060905-001 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 byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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 (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a differentmanner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained… 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. In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence: Commencement date: 01/06/2017 End of employment: 30/04/2023 Gross weekly pay: €1000.00 The Complainant was made aware of the fact than any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966. The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department.
|
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-00060905-001 I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of her employer to pay a redundancy. I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria: Commencement date: 01/06/2017 End of employment: 30/04/2023 Gross weekly pay: €1000.00 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.
|
Dated: 09/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eileen Campbell
Key Words:
Claim for statutory redundancy; anonymisation; special circumstances; |