Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Presser

A Dry Cleaners

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-00017316-001

07/02/2018

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Hoffman Presser since May 1972. Her employment was terminated on 19th February 2017. The complainant worked three days per week and was paid €246.00 gross per week.

The complainant is seeking that she be paid her redundancy entitlements in circumstances where she received a text message from her employer on 19th February 2017 informing her that the business was closing with immediate effect.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

In relation to this complaint I find as follows:

The complainant was notified of the immediate closure of the business on 19th February 2017.

The right to a Redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014 which states as follows:

7.(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

( b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(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, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,  

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken not to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if —

(a) the dismissal is one of a number of dismissals that, together, constitute collective redundancies as defined in section 6of the Protection of Employment Act 1977,

(b) the dismissals concerned were effected on a compulsory basis,

(c) the dismissed employees were, or are to be, replaced, at the same location or elsewhere in the State, (except where the employer has an existing operation with established terms and conditions) by —

(i) other persons who are, or are to be, directly employed by the employer, or

(ii) other persons whose services are, or are to be, provided to that employer in pursuance of other arrangements,

(d) those other persons perform, or are to perform, essentially the same functions as the dismissed employees, and

(e) the terms and conditions of employment of those other persons are, or are to be, materially inferior to those of the dismissed employees.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee shall be taken as having been laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period if he has been laid off or kept on short-time for a period of four or more consecutive weeks, or for a period of six or more weeks which are not consecutive but which fall within a period of thirteen consecutive weeks.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, where an employee who has been serving a period of apprenticeship training with an employer under an apprenticeship agreement is dismissed within one month after the end of that period, that employee shall not, by reason of that dismissal, be entitled to redundancy payment.

In ascertaining, for the purposes of subsection (2) (c), whether an employer has decided to carry on a business with fewer or no employees, account shall not be taken of the following members of the employer‘s family —

father, mother, stepfather, stepmother, son, daughter, adopted child, grandson, granddaughter, stepson, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister.

(5) In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short-time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years.

In the instant case, the employer closed the business and therefore in compliance with Section 7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014 the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment.

Having considered complainant’s submission, I declare that the complaint is well founded. The complainant is entitled to a Redundancy payment based on the following information:

Date of commencement of employment: 1st May 1972

Date of cessation of employment: 19th February 2017

Gross Weekly pay: €246.00

This decision is based on the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Redundancy entitlements