ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056103
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Denise Gibbons | Danu Home Care Ann's Home Care |
Representatives |
| Annalee Brazel, Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint:
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-00068110-001 | 14/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
Pursuant to Section 39 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967 (as amended) it is directed that the manner of hearing prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 shall apply to any question, dispute, complaint or appeal referred to the Director General under the Redundancy Payments Acts of 1967 – 2014.
I have accordingly been directed by the Director General of the Adjudication services, to hear the within complaint and I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
Under the Redundancy Payments Acts, an eligible employee who is found to be redundant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for every year of service (per Section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act of 1967). The Acts provide for a payment of two weeks gross pay for each year of service. A further bonus week is added to this. An eligible employee is one with 104 weeks of continuous employment with an employer and whose position has ceased to exist. The calculation of Gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. Gross pay is the current normal weekly pay including average regular overtime and benefits-in-kind and before tax and PRSI deductions. A Redundancy payment is generally tax free.
A complainant must be able to show a minimum two years (104 weeks) of service in the employment.
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.
The Complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 14th of December 2024 by way of a workplace relations complaint form.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 28th of March 2025- and sent to the address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant was asserting an entitlement to Redundancy and/or was seeking to make a case of Constructive Dismissal as against her Employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A Director of the Respondent Company attended together with formal representation. A comprehensive submission had been received in advance of the hearing date. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint herein fails in circumstances where the Complainant did not present to give evidence in support of her claim. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00068110-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded in circumstances where the Complainant did not present to give evidence in support of her claim.
|
Dated: 02nd of July 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|