ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009233
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Laundrette Owner |
Representatives | In person | No appearance |
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-00012133-001 | 26/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Complainant worked for the Respondent in his laundry business from 1 November 2019 until 29 April 2017. She received one week’s notice that her employment would be terminating because the Respondent business was shutting down. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made no appearance at the Adjudication hearing and gave no notice to the WRC in advance of the hearing that he would not be attending. Subsequent to the hearing the Respondent contacted the WRC and indicated that due to an error he had not realised that the hearing was listed and that he would send in an email to the WRC indicating his defence. An email was received a week later which indicated that the Respondent had offered suitable alternative work to the Complainant but that she had not accepted it. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The adjudication of a complaint is based on evidence given at the hearing. If a party cannot attend a hearing, this must be notified to the WRC in advance of the hearing. Such notification cannot occur after the adjudication hearing has finished. Consequently, any evidence received by an Adjudicator by way of email or otherwise after the hearing has concluded, cannot be evidence that an Adjudicator can take into account, the reason being that such evidence cannot be tested by the other side if it is received outside the context of a hearing. Should the Respondent in this matter have required an adjournment of this matter, such an application should have been made to the WRC prior to the commencement of the hearing. Immediately before the commencement of the hearing, as there was no appearance by the Respondent the Adjudicator telephoned the WRC which confirmed that the WRC had not received any adjournment request from the Respondent, at which point the adjudication hearing commenced. Therefore, this matter was decided on the basis of the evidence heard during the Adjudication hearing and from this decision, an appeal lies to the Labour Court. |
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.
Having considered the evidence adduced in this case I find that this complaint to be well founded and based on the Complainant having insurable employment for the duration of her employment, I make a finding under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967-2012 that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum from the Respondent based on the following: Date of Commencement 1 November 2010
Date of Termination 29 April 2017 Gross weekly pay €240.00
|
|
|
Dated: 3rd May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|