ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007708

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Beauty Salon Employee	A Beauty Salon

Representatives

Complaint:

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-00010360-001	22/03/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complainant commenced work with the respondent on April 11^th 2011.

It terminated on December 3^rd 2016 when the respondent business closed.

She was not paid redundancy.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

There appears to have been a change in the ownership of the respondent business at the beginning of October 2016. A new person was in charge of the business (following a period of ill health by the previous owner).

The complainant is of the view that the person who took over acquired ownership of the business. On one occasion she had been asked whether she had any interest in acquiring the business.

She received a letter from him on December 5^th and while it is not a formal notice of redundancy she took it as confirmation to her that the business was closing.

When she made inquiries to the previous owner she received a letter on December 23^rd stating that he was no longer the owner. Efforts to get a response from the respondent by her solicitor did not get a reply.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend and did not provide any explanation of their failure to do so.

Findings and Conclusions:

I accept the evidence of the complainant in respect of the sequence of events outlined above.

The business closed and she lost her job of almost five years by reason of redundancy and was not given any redundancy payment.

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.

The complainant was made redundant following the closure of the respondent business.

I uphold complaint CA-00010360-001 and find that she is entitled to a redundancy payment based on her service from April 11^th 2011 until December 3^rd 2016 in accordance with the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2002.

Dated: 18^th August 2017