ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016625
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Hairdresser | Hairdressing Salon Owner |
Representatives | The claimant represented herself | The respondent represented herself |
Complaint(s):
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-00021637-001 | 07/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 ] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was employed as a hairdresser with the respondent from Jan. 2014 – August 2018 when she submitted she was dismissed by the respondent by reason of redundancy.The claimant had previously worked at the same salon from June 2012 .The business was taken over by the respondent in Jan. 2014.In her complaint form the claimant submitted that the respondent sold the business and offered to sell the business to the claimant.She asserted that because the respondent offered to sell the business to her , that the respondent claimed the claimant was not entitled to redundancy.The claimant declined the offer from the respondent to take over the business and left the company on the 4th.August 2018. The claimant submitted that she was advised by the respondent on the 18/19th.August that she had sold the business and that if she was interested she could come to work there.The claimant stated that she was very stressed out at this stage and that the offer from the respondent was very vague without any detail of terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that she gave the claimant 2 months notice and that she had no money to pay the claimant.She asserted that she offered the claimant other work but the claimant was not interested .There were now different people renting space at the salon .The respondent said that she did not understand redundancy. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties.I have concluded that neither the offer to take over the business nor the verbal offer to come to work with the third party who had purchased the business - without any specifics in relation to terms and conditions of employment - constituted suitable alternative employment.Accordingly , I find the complaint is well founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement 25.06.2012 Date of Termination 3.08.2018 Gross Weekly Pay €238.75 per week. The award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 12th March, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
|