Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Retail Assistant

Food Retailer

Representatives

 Citizens Information Service

No Appearance

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-00013783-001

06/09/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00013783-002

06/09/2017

The complainant was employed as a Retail Assistant by the respondent. The complainant was given notice on 3 April 2017 that the shop would cease trading on 10 April 2017. The complainant did not receive any redundancy payment or pay in lieu of notice when the shop closed.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 15 October 2011.

The complainant worked approx. 27 hours per week and was paid €9.70 per hour.

The complainant received one week’s notice of closure of the shop.

The complainant was advised that the respondent’s accountant would pay her the amount due to her as a redundancy payment but this did not happen.

The complainant did not receive the payment due to her in lieu of notice,

There was no appearance by the respondent.

The complainant gave evidence and submitted documentation in support of her complaints.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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…

The evidence before me is to the effect that the complainant’s employment terminated with effect from 10 April 2017 and that this was due to the respondent closing down the business and ceasing to trade.

In addition, the complainant’s evidence was that she was informed of the proposed closure on 3 April 2017.

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, states:

(1)    An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2)    (c) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be –

If the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks.

The complainant’s evidence was that she received one week’s notice. The complainant was entitled under the Act to four weeks’ notice and is therefore due the balance of three weeks.

Complaint No. CA-00013783-001:

This is a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. Based on the evidence before me I find this complaint to be well founded.   I order the respondent to pay to the complainant a lump sum redundancy payment as required by the Act and based on the following criteria:

Commencement Date:       15 October 2011

Termination Date:               10 April 2017

Gross Pay:                             €295.75 per week

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

Complaint No. CA-00013783-002:

This is a complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Based on the evidence before me I find this complaint to be well founded and I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €887.25 as compensation for notice due.