Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Senior Stylist

A Hair Salon

Representatives

In person

Did not attend

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-00030297-001

15/08/2019

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Senior Stylist from 12th February 2007 until her redundancy on 22nd December 2018. The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 15th August 2019.

The complainant stated that she has not received her entitlements under the Redundancy Payments legislation. The complainant stated that she worked full time for the respondent from 2007 until 2009 and after periods of Maternity Leave reduced her hours of work to two days per week until 2013 and to one day per week from 2013 onwards. The complainant was paid €80 gross per day.

The complainant stated that following her redundancy she requested an RP50 from her employer but received no response to her request. She subsequently partially completed an RP50 and returned it to her employer. The complainant stated that the RP50 was not completed by the respondent and was returned to her via the respondent’s Accountant.

The complainant stated that she submitted the incomplete RP50 to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection (DEASP) and was unsuccessful in receiving her redundancy entitlements as the matter had not been referred to the WRC.

The complaint subsequently referred the matter to the Adjudication Services of the WRC on 15th August 2019.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

Note: After the adjudication hearing into this complaint had concluded, correspondence issued from the WRC to the respondent on 19th December 2019 was returned undelivered and marked “Gone Away.” The Owner/Managing Director of the respondent was subsequently contacted by email during the Covid-19 restrictions and was offered the opportunity of a reconvened hearing at some future point. The respondent was also provided with a mobile telephone number to make contact with an officer of the WRC if required. There was no further contact from the respondent.

The Applicable Law

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

7(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under theSocial Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

Having considered the complainant’s verbal submission, it is clear that her employment ended by reason of redundancy in line with the provisions of Section 7(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded.

The complaint is well founded. The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment as follows:

Date of commencement of employment: 12th February 2007

Date of cessation of employment: 22nd December 2018

Gross weekly rate of pay: €80.00

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is based on the complainant having been in insurable employment in accordance with the Social Welfare Acts for the relevant period.

Redundancy entitlements