RP237/2013

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                             CASE NO.

Siobhan Gallagher                                                                                                     RP237/2013

against

Ritz Hair & Beauty

under

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms C. Egan B L

Members:     Mr W. O'Carroll

                    Ms H. Murphy

heard this appeal at Galway on 24th July 2014

Representation:

Appellant:

           William O’Connor. Knockdoebeg, Claregalway, Galway

Respondent:

             Greg Nolan Solicitors, 12 The Cresent, Galway

Respondent’s case:

The respondent is a hair salon and the appellant worked there as a hair stylist from 16^th August 2008 until 6^th December 2012. The appellant had been on maternity leave and was due to return to work on 6^th December 2012.

It was the respondent’s position that the appellant’s job was never made redundant and that it was open to the appellant to return to work on the same terms and conditions as before her maternity leave. The appellant was not confident about returning to the same position and wanted part-time work as opposed to the full-time hours she was on previously. To facilitate this, the respondent offered the appellant a junior position without a reduction in pay on a part-time basis. However, the appellant declined this offer and requested payment of a redundancy lump sum. The respondent consulted with her accountant and was advised that as this was not a redundancy situation she should not pay a redundancy lump sum.

When the respondent informed the appellant that she would not pay a redundancy lump sum the appellant did not return to work and the respondent presumed that she had resigned of her own volition.

Appellant’s case:

The appellant told the Tribunal that when she was due to return to work after her maternity leave the respondent offered her a return to work at a junior position and that when she refused this offer the respondent then offered her redundancy. The appellant was willing to accept redundancy but the respondent subsequently told her that she could not give her redundancy and would have to offer the claimant her job back. The appellant was already a number of weeks out of work at this point and wanted compensation for those unpaid weeks.

It was the appellant’s position that at all times she wanted to return to full-time work with the respondent.

Determination:

The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing and notes that there is a conflict in evidence as to whether the respondent offered the appellant a redundancy lump sum. However, notwithstanding this, the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant’s job still existed and was available to her at the end of her maternity leave and thereafter. Therefore, a redundancy situation did not arise at the time of the appellant’s termination of employment and accordingly this appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)