ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009520

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Bartender	A Bar/Restaurant

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-00012528-001	15/07/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/09/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

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 was employed as a Bartender with the Respondent from 23^rd June 2014 until 5^th February 2017. He was paid €10 per hour gross and worked 39 hours per week. His employment with the Respondent ceased on 5^th February 2017 when he attended at his work location to find that the Respondent’s premises had been closed down.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant stated that he worked for the Respondent from June 2014 until 5^th February 2017. He stated that he attended for work on 5^th February 2017 but was unable to get access to the premises. The complainant stated that it looked like all stock had been removed from the premises and it had become deserted overnight. The worker is seeking his statutory Redundancy entitlements.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

The Law:

Section 7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 - 2014 states as follows:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

( a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed

On the basis of the uncontested evidence of the complainant, I find that the Respondent had ceased to carry out its business in the place where the complainant was employed. It follows that the complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy.

Decision:

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

In all the circumstances of the complaint, I find that the complainant is entitled to a Redundancy payment as follows:

Date of commencement of employment: 23^rd June 2014

Gross Weekly Pay: €390

Date of cessation of employment: 5^th February 2017.

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the respective period of employment.

Dated: 16.11.17

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey

Key Words:

Statutory redundancy, ceased to carry out its business.