ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053083
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noeleen Burke | Naiscoil Dhomnach Og Cuideachta Faoi Theorainn Rathaiochta, Unit 1-2 Bridgetown Business Park Moville Road, Carndonnagh Donegal F93 TP04 |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | The claimant represented herself | The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing |
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-00064198-001 | 14/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00064198-002 | 14/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/02/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
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(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
CA-00064198-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was employed as a Room Leader with the respondent from the 2nd.Feb. 2017 to the 20th.July 2023 when the claimant received her final pay slip. On the 20th.July 2023 the claimant received a text message from the manager of the school to say that the school – which had been funded by Pobal had ceased trading with immediate effect. The claimant spent her last week in employment assisting the manager with clearing out the school. The claimant tried to engage with the respondent’s accountant but he refused to speak to her or to process her application for redundancy. The claimant submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to pay her statutory redundancy.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. Despite a number of attempts to contact the respondent, the claimant was unsuccessful. Notice of the hearing was issued to the respondent on the 6th.Jan. 2025 via registered post – An Post recorded “gone Away “ on the 20thJan 2025 and the notice was returned to the WRC . I am satisfied that the notice was sent to the registered office of the respondent |
Findings & Conclusions
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 have been 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 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
On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the claimant, I find that the school ceased operations on the 20th.July 2023 and that as a result the claimant’s employment ended. The claimant was accordingly dismissed by reason of redundancy
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.
I find the clamant was employed by the respondent from the 2nd.February 2017 to the 20th.July 2023. By reason of the closure of the school the employment ended on the 20th.July 2023.I find therefore that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2012 is well founded and that the claimant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement :2/Feb/2017 Date of Termination: 20th.July 2023 Gross Weekly Pay: €307 per week This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 07-03-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
CA-00064198-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay redundancy. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent at the adjudication hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the Complainant’s claim that she did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay redundancy, an Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to investigate this element of the claimant’s complaint. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2022 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I have no jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
Dated: 07-03-2025 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
|