ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058133
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rebecca Hartney | Christopher John Limerick Ltd trading as Christopher John |
Representatives | Gerard Kennedy | No Appearance |
Complaints:
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-00070636-001 | 08/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071755-001 | 21/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00071755-002 | 21/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00071755-003 | 21/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071755-004 | 21/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. | CA-00071755-005 | 21/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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:
The Complainant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Gerard Kennedy. Legal submissions were received in advance and relied upon in advance of the hearing.
There was no response by or on behalf of the Respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2007 as Hair Stylist. Her employment continued until it was terminated by reason of redundancy. The Complainant stated that she was notified of the redundancy by letter dated 23 January 2025, with her employment terminating on 1 February 2025. At the date of termination, the Complainant worked 36.5 hours per week and earned €492.75 per week. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00070636-001 At the outset of the hearing the Complainant withdrew this compliant. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-001 The Complainant submitted that her annual leave entitlement for the leave year 2024 had been fully discharged. However, as she worked a full month in 2025 prior to the termination of her employment, she contended that she accrued additional annual leave entitlement for that period equivalent to 1.66 days’ annual leave for January 2025. That equated to a sum of €163.59. In addition, the Complainant sought additional compensatory in accordance with principles ofVon Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (1984) Case 14/83. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00071755-002 At the outset of the hearing the Complainant withdrew this compliant. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00071755-003 The Complainant submitted she was not furnished with a written statement of her core terms and conditions of employment. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-004 The Complainant submitted her employment terminated on 1 February 2025. St Brigid’s Day, a public holiday, fell on 3 February 2025. It was her submission that pursuant to Section 23(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, she accrued an entitlement to payment in respect of that public holiday. The Complainant calculated the value of this public holiday entitlement as €98.55. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00071755-005 The Complainant submitted she was not furnished with a statement in writing setting out her terms of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. There was written correspondence of 24 April 2025 and email correspondence from John Sheir of the Respondent dated 7 May 2025. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00070636-001 The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-001 The Complainant’s evidence is undisputed and thereby accepted. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00071755-002 The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00071755-003 The Complainant’s evidence is undisputed and thereby accepted. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-004 The Complainant’s evidence is undisputed and thereby accepted. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00071755-005 The Complainant’s evidence is undisputed and thereby accepted. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00070636-001 The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-001 For the reason set out above, I find the complaint is well founded. Section 27 (3) of the 1997 Act (as amended) provides: “(3) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely: (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision, (c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.” In the circumstances, I consider compensation to be the most appropriate form of redress. In determining the amount of compensation, regard has been given to the Respondent’s failure to attend the hearing. For these reasons, I award compensation in the amount of €492.75, the equivalent of 1 weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable in the circumstances. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 CA-00071755-002 The complaint was withdrawn at the hearing. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00071755-003 For the reason outlined above, I find the complaint well founded. Section 7 (2) (d) is the most appropriate redress where the Complainant is no longer employed with the Respondent: “(d) 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.” I award compensation in the amount of €492.75, the equivalent of 1 weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable in the circumstances. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00071755-004 I find the complaint is well founded. Applying the same reasoning as CA-00071755-001, I award compensation in the amount of €492.75, the equivalent of 1 weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable in the circumstances. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. CA-00071755-005 For the reason outlined above, I find the complaint well founded. Applying the same reasoning as set out in CA-00071755-003 I award compensation in the amount of €492.75, the equivalent of 1 weeks’ remuneration, as being just and equitable in the circumstances. |
Dated: 30/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
|