Case Number: ADJ 15866. Workplace Relations Commission

• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Date: 30 October 2019
• Docket Number: ADJ 15866
• Parties: An Employee v A Retail Entity

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, 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.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant commenced working for the respondent at his gift shop on a street in Dublin on the 10th September, 2012. She was employed by the individual named as the respondent in claim form ADJ-00016437.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

This decision should be read in conjunction with ADJ-00016437 and ADJ-00016431. Based on the evidence adduced by the complainant, I am satisfied that the respondent named in ADJ-00016437 is the correct respondent for the purpose of these proceedings. On that basis I find that the incorrect respondent has been named in ADJ-00016431 and ADJ-00015866. Accordingly, I find that the within claims are not well founded.

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.

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.

Ca 20667–02 The complaint fails CA 20667-03 The complaint fails.

Dated: 30th October 2019

...