Drumcondra Childcare Ltd v Agnieszka Szumera (Represented by Blazej Nowak)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 05 November 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 11 JIEC 0502
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.RPD1814 ADJ-00012935 CA-00017169-001
• Date: 05 November 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

RPA/18/21

DETERMINATION NO.RPD1814

ADJ-00012935 CA-00017169-001

PARTIES:

Drumcondra Childcare Limited

and

Agnieszka Szumera (Represented by Blazej Nowak)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S): ADJ-00012935 CA-00017169-001

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 October 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This is an appeal brought by Ms Agnieszka Szumera (‘the Complainant’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00012935: CA-00017169-001, dated 25 July 2018) made under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (‘the Act’). The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received on 3 September 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 25 October 2018.

4 There was no dispute between the Parties in relation to the material facts. These can be succinctly recited as follows. The Complainant was employed as a part-time cleaner by the Respondent from 1 March 2012 until 1 January 2018. She was placed on temporary lay-off from 25 August 2017 until 1 January 2018. After a period in excess of four weeks on temporary lay-off, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent terminating her employment with effect from 1 January 2018.

5 The Complainant submits that – pursuant to section 12(2) of the Act — she is entitled in all the circumstances to a statutory redundancy lump sum. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that it served a counter letter on the Complainant offering her a period of continuous employment but that this was not done within the timeframe (of seven days from the date of receipt of the employee's intention to claim) provided for in section 13(2) of the Act. The Employer's representative did not exhibit a copy of that letter containing the counter-notice to the Court.

The Law

6 Section 12 of the Act provides:

• “12(1) An employee shall not be entitled to redundancy payment by reason of having been laid off or kept on short-time unless—

○ (a) he has been laid off or kept on short-time for four or more consecutive weeks or, within a period of thirteen weeks, for a series of six or more weeks of which not more than three were consecutive,...