FULL RECOMMENDATION
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2014 PARTIES : GREGORZ SLECZKA - AND - AGNIESZKA SIKORA (REPRESENTED BY SHANE KENNEDY & CO. SOLICITORS) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No:ADJ-00014332 CA-00018635-002. This is an appeal by Mr Gregorz Sleczka (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00014332; CA-00018635-002, dated 1 October 2019) under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer decided that Ms Agnieszka Sikora’s (‘the Complainant’) complaint under the Act was well-founded and she was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment arising from the circumstances in which her employment with the Respondent had terminated. The Respondent’s Notice of Appeal was received on 5 November 2019. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 2 October 2020. Factual Matrix The Complainant was employed as a retail assistant in the Respondent’s premises in Monaghan. Her gross weekly wage was €330.00. The Respondent informed the Complainant by written notice dated 14 September 2017 that he intended to close the Monaghan shop on 15 October 2017. The Respondent offered the Complainant (who resides in Monaghan) a position in his business in Nenagh, Co Tipperary. This offer was refused by the Complainant. The Respondent made an offer of alternative employment to the Complainant at his business in Stradone, Co. Cavan. This offer was also deemed unsuitable by the Complainant and refused. The Complainant’s employment ceased on 10 October 2017. The Respondent submits that both his business in Nenagh and in Stradone include a retail as well as a meat processing section and that the Complainant would have been employed in the relevant retail section had she accepted one or other of his offers of alternative employment. The Respondent also submits that the written contract of employment signed by the Complainant on 3 February 2017 provides that her main place of work is “Monaghan/Cavan/Nenagh”. The Complainant submits that she was unaware that there was retail operation associated with the Respondent’s business operations in Nenagh and Stradone as he had not made this clear to her and had not provided her with a written job description outlining the alternative roles he had available following the closure of the Monaghan business. In response to a question from the Court in this regard, the Respondent confirmed that he had not provided the Complainant with a written description of either alternative position. The Complainant also submits that both locations are too distant from her place of residence and that the business in Stradone is in an isolated, rural location some forty minutes from her residence. Discussion and Decision Having considered both Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court finds the Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy in circumstances where the offers of alternative employment made by the Respondent to the Complainant cannot be considered suitable alternative employment for the purposes of the Act having regard to their location and bearing in mind the Respondent’s admission that he had not furnished the Complainant with a written description of the duties entailed in either position. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court determines that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment to be determined having regard to the following criteria: Start date: 1 April 2012 Date of Termination: 10 October 2017 Gross weekly pay: €330.25 The award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment within the meaning of the Act for the stated period. The Court so determines.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary. |
