ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019888
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | IT Engineer | Technology Company |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00026328-001 | 17/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00026328-002 | 17/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00026328-003 | 17/02/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00026727-001 | 02/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/06/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery
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 is an IT Engineer. All employees were dismissed on 04 May 2018. Two of the Company’s Directors had resigned prior to this date. The CEO stated that all employees would be treated accordingly as per contract. However, no redundancy, notice period or outstanding holiday money was paid. The HR Officer and Accountant tried to contract the CEO to request him to sign the RP50 but this was unsuccessful. Former Directors have stated that they would like to sign to form to ensure that employees have an opportunity to receive redundancy payment but as they have resigned they feels that they have no authority to do so.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was terminated on 4 May 2018 but his claim was not received until 17 February 2019. The Complainant outlined the delay in his claim form was that he was in contact with the CEO who responded to emails and reassured him and the other employees affected that they would get their entitlements. The Complainant has emails to confirm this. I accept that this is a reasonable reason to grant him an extension up to twelve months as permitted by legislation.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend on the day and was notified correctly.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00026328-001: 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 expected to cease or diminish… The employee commenced employment on 01 October 2015 and his employment was terminated on 04 May 2018. I find that the claim is well founded. The complainant’s employment ceased. The complainant was accordingly dismissed by reason of redundancy. CA-00026328-002: The Complainant claims that he was due three weeks holidays i.e. 15 days holidays for the period prior to his termination. CA-00026328-003: The Complainant states that he was due one months’ notice per his contract of employment and he did not get any notice. CA-00026727-001 This is a duplicate claim to CA-00026328-001 above and is addressed under that CA number.
|
Decision:
CA-00026328-001: 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 claim is well founded based on the evidence provided. Based on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the complainant was in employment the Respondent’s company. I find that his employment terminated on 04 May 2018 by reason of redundancy. I find therefore that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement: 01 October 2015 Date of Termination: 04 May 2018 Gross Monthly Pay: €3333.33 CA-00026328-002: Section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows:A decision of an adjudication officer under Section 41of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely: (a) Declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) Require the employer to comply with the relevant provision, (c) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment. The Complainant claims that he was due three weeks holidays i.e. 15 days holidays for the period prior to his termination. The evidence was uncontested. I declare that the complaint is well founded. He is therefore entitled to payment for these holidays. CA-00026328-003: The Complainant states that he was due one months’ notice per his contract of employment and he did not get any notice. The evidence was uncontested. He is therefore entitled to one months’ notice pay of €3333.33 gross pay. CA-00026727-001: This is a duplicate claim to CA-00026328-001 above and is addressed under that CA number.
|
Dated: 17th September 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Caroline McEnery
Key Words:
|