ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051942
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jenna Murray | J & J Retail Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | RVW O’Reilly Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00062948-002 | 18/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00062948-003 | 18/04/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00062948-004 | 18/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/08/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Procedure:
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaints. A hearing into the complaint took place on 27 August 2024. The hearing was conducted in public at the hearing rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) office in Carlow. It was accepted by the parties that the correct Respondent is J & J Retail Limited and not the legal entity named in the duplicate complaint ADJ-00051941.
Background:
The Complainant’s complaints as per the WRC complaint form are as follows:
CA-00062948-002 The Complainant contends she did not receive her statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of her employment or payment in lieu thereof.
CA-00062948-003 The Complainant contends that she did not receive all of her rights during the period of notice.
CA-00062948-004 The Complainant contends that she did not receive notice of termination of her contract of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted that her contract of employment provided for one months’ notice whereas the Respondent gave her payment in lieu of two weeks’ notice only. The Complainant was given the option to work out the two weeks’ notice given or to accept payment in lieu thereof. The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that she received all her statutory entitlements such as public holiday pay and cesser pay for annual leave accrued but not taken on termination of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant received in excess of her statutory notice entitlement and all of her statutory rights during the notice period. The WRC has no jurisdiction to hear any claim outside of the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Information Act, 1973. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Relevant Law Minimum period of notice Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Information Act, 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) provides: “(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week . . . .” Rights of employee during period of notice Section 5 of the 1973 Act provides: “(1) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the liability of an employer during the period of notice required by this Act to be given—(a) by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for thirteen weeks or more . . . .” The Second Schedule provides: “1. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, an employee shall, during the period of notice, be paid by his employer in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment and shall have the same rights to sick pay or holidays with pay as he would have if notice of termination of his contract of employment had not been given . . . . ” Findings CA-00062948-002 The Complainant had less than two years’ service and accordingly is entitled to one weeks’ notice for the purposes of the 1973 Act. The Complainant confirmed she received payment in lieu of her statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of her employment. Therefore I find this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00062948-003 The Second Schedule of the 1973 Act provides that an employee must, during the notice period, be paid in accordance with the terms of the contract and must have the same rights to sick pay or holidays with pay as she or he would have if notice of termination of the contract of employment had not been given. The Complainant chose not to work out the notice period and she confirmed she received payment in lieu of notice and cesser pay for annual leave accrued but not taken on termination of employment. Therefore I find this complaint is not well-founded. CA-00062948-004 The Complainant contends that she did not receive notice of termination of her contract of employment. I am satisfied that the Complainant received in excess of her statutory notice entitlement. The WRC has no jurisdiction with respect to contractual notice. Therefore I find this complaint is not well-founded.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00062948-002 I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00062948-003 I decide this complaint is not well-founded.
CA-00062948-004 I decide this complaint is not well-founded. |
Dated: 16th September, 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering
Key Words:
Statutory minimum notice. |