ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037951
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Catherine Dunleavy | IBAS Healthcare Ltd |
Representatives |
| Robert Plunkett, Plunkett Kirwan |
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-00049372-001 | 25/03/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00049372-002 | 25/03/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00049372-003 | 25/03/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/11/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The Respondent’s solicitor sent a postponement request on 7 November 2022 which was refused. As no representative from or on behalf of the Respondent attended on the day, the hearing proceeded.
Background:
The Complainant started her employment as an Office Administrator with the Respondent on 26 May 2019. She stated that she was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy on 3 January 2022 and did not receive either her minimum notice or her redundancy entitlements. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated in evidence that she was put on temporary lay-off by the Respondent on 26 November 2021 and told that she would return to work on 4 January 2022. She received a whatsapp message on 3 January 2022 however stating that there was no work available for her as the company was taking a different direction. When she queried it, the Complainant was told that it was nothing to do with her and that she had been great to work with. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing to give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows: 7(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided— (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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 for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that 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, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, Having considered the evidence, it is clear based on her uncontradicted evidence that the Complainant’s employment ended by reason of redundancy in line with the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act above. As the Complainant was notified of her redundancy on 3 January 2022 and she is entitled to two weeks’ notice as outlined in CA-00049372-002 below, her date of termination is 17 January 2022. CA-00049372-002: Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, states: (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be – (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more but less than five years, two weeks c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, (d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks, I am satisfied based on her uncontradicted evidence that the Complainant did not receive her minimum notice entitlements. Given that she had more than two years’ service but less than 5 years, she is entitled to 2 weeks’ notice. |
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.
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.
CA-00049372-001: I allow the Complainant’s appeal and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2012 based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 26 May 2019 - Date of termination: 17 January 2022 - Gross weekly wage: €769 - Non-reckonable break in service: 26 November 2021 – 3 January 2022 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00049372-002: As highlighted above, the Complainant is entitled to two weeks’ notice according to section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 as set out above. As she did not receive this minimum notice payment, I find that her complaint is well founded and make an award of €1,538, namely two weeks’ pay, in respect of this complaint. CA-00049372-003: This is a duplicate complaint and has been dealt with in CA-00049372-002 above. |
Dated: 2nd March 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|