ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00056932
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Pauline Centofanti | Three Steps Ltd (Clp Group Or Mind Hub) |
Representatives | Self-represented | Jason Murray B.L., instructed by Declan Brooks Shanley Solicitors LLP |
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-00069109-001 | 07/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069484-001 | 21/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069484-002 | 21/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069484-003 | 21/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069484-004 | 21/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069484-005 | 21/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00069484-008 | 21/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following 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.
Background:
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 gave evidence under affirmation. Cross examination was offered but not availed of. Although a witness for the respondent undertook to provide evidence under affirmation at the outset, no evidence was offered by the respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00069109-001 Redundancy The complainant confirmed that she was not made redundant and continued her employment with the respondent, albeit in a different role CA-00069484-001 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement of her terms and conditions in writing but confirmed that she received a contract of employment. CA-00069484-002 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement of her terms and conditions in writing but confirmed that she received a contract of employment. CA-00069484-003 Core Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that she did not receive a statement of her core terms and conditions in writing but confirmed that she received a contract of employment. CA-00069484-004 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that this complaint was a duplication of an earlier complaint. CA-00069484-005 Terms of Employment Mandatory Training The complainant submitted that she was not provided with training in accordance with the Act. CA-00069484-008 Redundancy The complainant submitted that this complaint was a duplication of an earlier complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00069109-001 Redundancy The respondent submitted that the complainant was not made redundant. CA-00069484-001 Terms of Employment The respondent submitted that the complainant was provided with a contract of employment satisfying the requirements of the Act on 4 June when her salary negotiations concluded. CA-00069484-002 Terms of Employment The respondent submitted that the complainant was provided with a contract of employment satisfying the requirements of the Act on 4 June when her salary negotiations concluded. CA-00069484-003 Core Terms of Employment The respondent submitted that the complainant’s employment commenced in 2011 and that Section 3(1A) of the Act is not relevant to this employment CA-00069484-004 Terms of Employment The respondent noted that the complainant acknowledged that this complaint is a duplication of an earlier complaint. CA-00069484-005 Terms of Employment Mandatory Training The respondent noted that there was no mandatory training associated with her role and that she has not established that the Act has been breached. CA-00069484-008 Redundancy The respondent noted that the complainant acknowledged that this complaint is a duplication of an earlier complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00069109-001 Redundancy The complainant confirmed that she was not made redundant and continued her employment with the respondent, albeit in a different role. Section 7(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states that: 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. The complainant was not dismissed from her employment and accordingly has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a redundancy payment. CA-00069484-001 Terms of Employment The complainant was provided with a contract of employment providing her with the terms of employment as required in the Act. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00069484-002 Terms of Employment The complainant was provided with a contract of employment providing her with the terms of employment as required in the Act. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00069484-003 Core Terms of Employment The complainant commenced her employment with the respondent in 2011. Section 3(1A) of the Act does not have retrospective effect and accordingly is not relevant to her employment with the respondent. CA-00069484-004 Terms of Employment This is a duplicate of an earlier complaint. CA-00069484-005 Terms of Employment Mandatory Training The complainant did not establish that there was any mandatory training associated with her role. Accordingly, I find that she has not established that the complaint is well founded. CA-00069484-008 Redundancy This is a duplicate of an earlier complaint. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints 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-00069109-001 Redundancy Having regard to all the written and oral evidence in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant has not established her entitlement to a redundancy payment and accordingly her appeal fails. CA-00069484-001 Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00069484-002 Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00069484-003 Core Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act does not apply to this employment. CA-00069484-005 Terms of Employment Mandatory Training Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 03-09-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Redundancy – no dismissal – no entitlement to a redundancy payment established – Terms of Employment Information – Received written contract – No breach established – complaint not well founded – duplicate complaints |