Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Restaurant Worker

A Restaurant

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-00007714-001

19/10/2016

The complainant worked in a restaurant, the management of which changed in July 2015 while she was on maternity leave.

On her return to work in October 2014, at her own request she worked a reduced working week of two days, although this could vary and could be three or four days.

The restaurant then closed suddenly and she was made redundant but did not get any redundancy payment.

She had been employed from June 19^th 2010 until September 6^th 2016 at the rate of €10 per hour.

The nature of the change in the management or ownership of the restaurant in July 2015 has given rise to difficulty.

The previous management has claimed that the person who assumed control in July was responsible for any payments.

The new management has passed responsibility back to the previous management, and in addition has argued that the complainant ‘broke her contract’ at some stage, although she was not given any details of this.

She and her colleagues were only given two days’ notice of the closure of the restaurant and the second owner continues to trade at a different location.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was provided as to why.

The facts of this case as set out above are clear. The complainant was made redundant in the most peremptory way.

The confusion surrounding the transfer in July 2015 does not help. It is not clear whether this was a transfer of ownership or whether the new arrangement involved the sub-contracting of the management function.

However the evidence of the complainant, which I accept, was that responsibility to make the redundancy payment passed to the current respondent and therefore the named respondent in this case is the correct one.

He is liable to pay redundancy to the complainant for her service from June 19^th 2010 to September 30^th 2016, a period of eighty-four weeks.

I uphold complaint CA-00007714-001 and find that the complainant is entitled to redundancy payments calculated on the basis of her service from June 19^th 2010 until September 30^th 2016 in accordance with the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts.

Redundancy, non –payment.