Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ewa  Arcimowicz

Equinox Management Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented

Alison Quail ALISON QUAIL & CO., SOLICITORS

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00056153-001

18/04/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give evidence under affirmation. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

The complainant submitted that she was dismissed by way of notification received from the Revenue Commissioners.  She confirmed in her evidence that she continued to work in the same premises and continued to receive her weekly wages, lodged to her account.

The respondent submitted that no dismissal took place and that the complainant continued to be employed at the same premises and continued receiving her wages up until the time she went off on sick leave in September 2023.

The Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 define dismissal as follows:

“dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

(a) the termination by his employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee,

(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer, or

(c) the expiration of a contract of employment for a fixed term without its being renewed under the same contract or, in the case of a contract for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), the cesser of the purpose;

The complainant gave evidence that she was continually employed by the respondent and received weekly wages until September 2023 when she was certified off on sick leave.  The respondent provided documentary evidence of the continued employment of, and payment of wages up to September 2023 to, the complainant.  Arising from submissions and oral evidence, it appears that there has been a mix-up when the respondent engaged a new firm of accountants and the letter from the Revenue Commissioner does not reflect the continued employment relationship.

Arising from the foregoing, I find that no dismissal has taken place and that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

Unfair Dismissal – no dismissal established – not unfairly dismissed.