Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008228

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Hairdresser	Hair Salon Owner

Complaint(s):

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-00010953-001	25/04/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/07/2017

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 ] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant was employed as a hairdresser with the respondent on a 3 day week from the 10^th.Sept.2014 to the 25^th.March 2017 – earning €219.60 per week. She submitted that she received notice that the business was closing on the 7th.March . She complained that the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to pay her statutory redundancy entitlement. The claimant asserted that 2 weeks after the salon closed the respondent called to her home and advised her that she may be able to offer her further employment one day a week and that there was a possibility that the proprietor of the salon where the respondent was now working might offer her another day’s employment. The claimant submitted that this was not a reasonable offer of alternative employment as it was not in writing it constituted a worsening of her conditions and it involved a change of contract as a new location and new salon was involved.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denied that they were in breach of the Act and submitted that the claimant had no entitlement to redundancy as they had guaranteed the claimant on going work for a day a week with the possibility of 2 days. They had to downsize their salon and were renting seats in another salon. It was submitted that they had contacted an employer rights body and been advised that the claimant was not entitled to redundancy as she had been offered alternative employment. It was submitted that the respondent hoped to guarantee one day per week with a possibility of 2 days – it was stated that a 3day week was not achievable.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

[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.

Having reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing , I accept the claimant’s contention that she was not offered reasonable alternative employment and accordingly I am upholding the complaint.I require the respondent to pay the claimant her statutory yredundancy entitlement within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Dated: 9 November 2017