ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006693
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Complainant | Respondent |
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-00009098-001 | 16/01/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/07/2017 & 19/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Seamstress from the 5th November 2013 to the 1st September 2016. That she worked 24 hours per week and was paid €223.84. She alleges that she was not paid her statutory redundancy payments on the termination of her employment. She filed a complaint with the WRC on the 16th January 2017. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed as a Seamstress by the Respondent from the 5th November 2013 to the 1st September 2016. That she met with the employer on the 13th August 2016 and he advised her that he would have no choice but to let her go because he could not afford to pay her. He also advised her that he was going to change the structure on how the business was going to be run in the future. That she was on sick leave from the 17th August 2016 to the 31st August 2016 and that she was to return to work on the 1st September 2016. He issued her with a P45 on the 1st September 2016. However, he required her to stay at work until the 5th September 2016 as he was taking annual leave. The Respondent asked her if she would be interested in doing work for him from home as a contractor. She agreed to do so and worked for a period of four weeks. She submitted invoices to him for this work, but he refused to pay her. She did not resign from her employment as suggested by the Respondent. She was made redundant and the Respondent failed to pay her the redundancy entitlements that was due to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
That he did not dismiss the Complainant from the workplace as she has suggested in her submission. At the meeting on the 13th August 2016 she advised him that she was no longer in a position to work for him due to illness (sore knee and back pains). She requested that she be issued with a P45 as she was not going to return to work and she required it for social welfare purposes. On this basis, she issued her with a P45 on the 1st September 2016. He did request, if she was interested, in working from home and he would provide her with the necessary equipment to do so. She agreed to do this for a period of four weeks. She was to be paid on the basis of the invoices that she submitted to him and he paid her all monies that were due to her. On the 17th October 2016, she contacted him requesting her redundancy payments. He informed her that he did not make her redundant and that she voluntarily requested her P45 as she felt she did not know if she would be fit to work again. He informed her that her job was still available if she wished to return to work and if she provided him with a medical certificate from her doctor that she was fit to return to work. He received no further communication from her after this time and assumed that she had started her own business and was not returning to his business. The Complainant was not made redundant, she voluntarily resigned from her position. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There is a conflict of evidence between the parties in relation to this complaint. The Complainant has stated that she was let go from her job by the Respondent. The Respondent stated that she voluntarily resigned from her employment. The Complainant was on a sick cert from the 17th August 2016 to the 31st August 2016 due to pain in her right knee. She was due to return to work on the 1st September 2016. However, she was issued with her P45 on the 1st September 2016. The Complainant was requested to operate as a contractor from home doing exactly the same work that she carried out in the workplace. It does not appear logical to me that the Respondent would request the Complainant to carry out similar work at home, if, as he stated, she advised him that she was too ill to carry out her duties in the workplace. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing and on the balance of probability, I find that the complaint is well-founded. |
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.
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent on a period for unbroken continuous service from the 5th November 2013 to the 1st September 2016. The Complainant’s normal weekly rate of pay was €223.84. The Complainant sought a redundancy payment from the Respondent on the 17th October 2016. The Respondent failed to pay the Complainant her redundancy entitlements. Based on the foregoing, I find and declare that the complaint under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 is well-founded. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant her statutory redundancy payment based on her weekly wage of €223.84 and her continuous unbroken service from the 5th November 2013 to the 1st September 2016. |
Dated: 4th April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Key Words:
|