ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031586
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brendan O'Connell | Lynfrae Trading Co. Ltd |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00041959-001 | 12/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 made redundant and made a claim that he didn’t receive a statement in writing on his terms of employment. He commenced employment with the company in 1995. The employer does not dispute the claim regarding the fact that he didn’t give his employee a written statement. However, all terms of the contract were honoured. The parties have engaged in direct discussions to resolve the complaint and proposals made either unravelled or were conditional on terms not acceptable to the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Act states that: 3.— (1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment, that is to say— No statement was provided as per section 3. The offer first made was not for a full four weeks and subsequently when offered was conditional on the acceptance of other terms. The first offer was breached and was not honoured. At the heart of this complaint is a trust issue. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Best endeavours were made to resolve the matter; however, the offers made were not acceptable, to the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The circumstances of this case relate to a redundancy that arose during the Pandemic. The employer has engaged with the employee and has made two offers; although, the employee disputes that the first offer was bona fide. The complaint is well founded and the contravention is not in dispute. The claim was made at the end of the employment relationship arising from redundancy. That in turn was necessitated based on the extreme trading conditions caused by the Pandemic. I determine that the the employer to pay 2 weeks compensation which is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances of this case relating to the severe trading conditions encountered by the employer and when the employment relationship was ended arising from redundancy that was necessitated due to those severe trading conditions. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I order the employer as per section 7 of the Act: in relation to a complaint of a contravention under change section 3 , 4 , 5 , or 6 , and without prejudice to any order made under paragraph (e) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks ’ remuneration in respect of the employee ’ s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 . to pay to the employee 2 weeks compensation based on gross weekly salary of: 2 weeks x €729.45 gross weekly salary=€1458.90 |
Dated: 8th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Statement of terms |