Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A Salon Owner

Representatives

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-00020862-001

30/07/2018

The complainant commenced her employment with the respondent on the 14th of October 2008. She was the manager of the respondent salon. Her weekly remuneration was €422.17. The complainant had a meeting with the respondent in or around May, 2017. During that meeting the respondent told the complainant that he was closing the business and asked her if she would be interested in buying it for €15,000.00. The complainant took some time to think about it and having assessed it together with the value of the assets, she determined that it was not worth €15,000. She was also aware at that the lease was up for renewal. In June the respondent told her that he was in fact going to close both his salons and intended to get a job as a taxi driver. The complainant asked for some information in relation to her redundancy payment. The respondents said that he was liquidating the company and she wasn't entitled to it. In July the respondent offered her a position in his salon at a gym. The claimant made several attempts to establish the terms and conditions of the offer however none were forthcoming. She was aware that she would be working under the respondent and therefore deemed it to be a demotion. She was also aware that the footfall in the gym salon was much less than that in the salon she had worked in for the respondent. She was also aware that members of the gym were entitled to a 15% discount which meant that her income and commission would be much less. On the basis that the terms and conditions of this offer where never outlined to her and based on her own personal knowledge of the actual business, she declined the offer.

The respondent started his business in August,2008. At that time business was good. However, once the recession started many units around his business closed, reducing the footfall in the area. The landlord who took over the unit increased the rent from €15,900 to €20,190 and again the following year to €23,400.00. The increase in rent together with the reduced footfall put the respondent under enormous financial pressure. At that time he was in debt to the revenue commissioners to the sum of €7,000.00 and he owed the Sheriff €12,000.00 The lease on the premises was due for renewal on the 1st of August 2017. In March of that year, due to the financial circumstances the respondent found himself in, he made the decision not to renew the lease and to close the business. He had a meeting with the complainant in March and explained the situation to her. He asked if she would be interested in taking over the business and the unit. The complainant stated that she would need time to assess the offer. The complainant told the respondent in June that she would not be buying for business. It wasn't until the middle of July that the respondent offered to the complainant a position in his other salon. The complainant rejected this offer on the basis that her income would be much less than it was currently. The respondent is not in a position to pay the complainant her redundancy.

I am satisfied based on the evidence of both parties that a genuine redundancy situation existed. I am also satisfied that based on the lack of information that was given to the complainant in relation to the alternative position, she was Justified in refusing the offer.

In all the circumstances the complainant is retired entitled to a redundancy payment.

Employment commencement date: 14.10.2008

Employment end date :   04.08. 2018

Gross weekly pay : € 422.17