ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010613

Complaint:

ActComplaint Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA-00014026-001 19/09/2017   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/11/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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 complaints.  

Background:

The complainant commenced employment on October 15th 2012 and the employment terminated on April 28th 2017. She was paid €402 weekly.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant says she was made redundant by her employer which was ceasing to trade. She received a letter dated March 21st 2017 putting her on notice that her employment would cease trading on April 28th. While there was reference to the possibility of a new owner taking over the business there was no further information on this. In the event, no-one did. She was offered alternative employment. However, this would have involved an additional one hour’s travelling time in each direction as opposed to her current journey time of about ten minutes. In addition, she would have incurred the additional costs of travelling including tolls. It was approximately twenty-eight kilometres away. In addition, the alternative employment had opening hours that were less suitable for the complainant. This offer was repeated in correspondence with the WRC on November 11th 2017.  

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the hearing. As noted above he had engaged with the Commission at an earlier stage and no explanation was offered for the failure to attend.  

Findings and Conclusions:

This is a relatively simple matter. The complainant was clearly placed in a redundancy situation by the letter of March 21st 2017. Despite its vague references to the possibility of continuing employment the business employing her ceased to trade and the respondent had an obligation to process the redundancy in the correct manner. The issue then arising is whether the offer of alternative employment, first made on April 26th, 2017 might be considered reasonable in the circumstances. Having regard to the combination of factors outlined above I do not consider that it was; the distance, travelling time, additional costs and the opening hours justified the complainant in declining the offer. Accordingly, she is entitled to a 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.   For the reasons set out above I uphold complaint CA-00014026 and award the complainant a redundancy payment on the basis of her service from October 15th 2012 to April 28th 2017 in line with the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts and subject to her having been in insurable employment for that period.  

Dated:   16/02/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Key Words: Redundancy