ADJ-00010616

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Merchandiser

A Merchandising company

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00014028-001

19/09/2017

The complainant had twenty-eight years’ service with the respondent. There was very significant variation in her pattern of hours. She worked sixteen hours per week and was paid €600 per month.

In October 2016, the complainant was advised that there would be ‘no more work’ for her as a result of the loss of the contract on which she was working.

IN December, she requested her P 45 and she was sent a letter of termination.

The respondent referred to the possibility of other work and offered to discuss this with her bit this did not materialise as anything concrete.

In February, she submitted Form RP 77 and was again offered alternative work but with the same outcome as previously.

In May, she wrote saying that she was available for work and the company responded saying it had work for her and would be in contact with her.

However, she heard nothing further.

The owner of the respondent stated that the complainant was one of three employees working on a specific contract which was lost.

The complainant worked only thirteen weeks in each of the years 2015 and 2016.

The respondent made a genuine effort to engage with the complainant. The problem regarding the offer of work was that it required the respondent to ohave a discussion with the complainant and that did not take place.

I find that the complainant was clearly made redundant. However, the respondent seemed unable to deal cleanly and decisively with the situation.

In fairness to him, the parties had a longstanding relationship, and it seemed at the hearing that they continued to be on reasonably amicable terms.

The respondent’s intentions in relation to finding alternative work seemed genuine, if a little fuzzy. In any event, he failed to act on them and in the process left the complainant in a difficult position.

The complainant worked only thirteen weeks in each of the previous two years. The evidence as to her service in earlier years was unclear. She claimed that in some of those years she worked ‘almost full time, every week’.

There are obvious difficulties in tracking back her hours over twenty-eight years. She also accepted that there were years in which she worked less than full time.

I find that the complainant was made redundant and is entitled to a redundancy payment in line with the Regulations of the Department of Social Protection based on her service from June 6^th 1989 and November 30^th 2016 subject to her having been in insurable employment for that period.

I uphold complaint CA-14028-001 and award the complainant a redundancy in line with the Regulations of the Department of Social Protection based on her service from June 6^th 1989 to November 30^th 2016 subject to her having been in insurable employment for that period.

Redundancy