ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027776
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Café Worker | Café Owner/Operator |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
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-00035652-001 | 09/04/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/03/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Respondent terminated the employment of the Complainant on 26 November 2019 when the café where she worked was closed. The complaint follows by a failure of the Respondent to pay redundancy to the Complainant and this is in effect an appeal against a refusal to pay redundancy. This was a virtual hearing held remotely. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was employed at the café from 29 July 2016 to 27 November 2019. During that time the name of her employer changed but she worked continuously at the same job under the direction and control of the same named person. Her average hours of work were 36 per week and she was paid €360 per week. In November 2019 she went on sick leave for surgery. On 27 November she received a text from the Respondent telling her the business was closed and thanking her for her service. A fellow worker also told her that on the instruction of the Respondent she had closed the business that morning. She downloaded the redundancy form and sent it to an address she had for the Respondent by registered post. There was no reply and no further contact from him about redundancy although she did text him once or twice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
This is the second of two complaints against the respondent for a refusal to pay redundancy-the first of which was heard in February 2021. The named Respondent did contact the WRC prior to the February hearing stating that he could attend that hearing if it was postponed to the following week. When the WRC attempted to service the notice of the current case, the email was ‘bounced back’ from the email address previously used to contact the Respondent. The phone number previously used by the WRC to contact him was no longer operating. As I am satisfied that every reasonable effort was made by the WRC to notify the Respondent of the hearing using the means which were successful in a previous case and using the only known contacts for the Respondent, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the available evidence and taking account of information provided by the Respondent prior to the hearing in February, the conclusion is that the Complainant was in continuous employment from 2016 to 2019 and that, while the name or legal entity of her employer may have changed during that period, she has more than the two years’ service in the employment required to qualify for statutory redundancy. The applicable parts of Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act (1967-2015) state: (1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy …shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known… as redundancy payment provided- (a) he has been employed for the requisite period ,and (b) he was an employed contributor in an employment which was insurable….
(2) 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 in the place where the employee was so employed, or…’ Based on the evidence, there was a genuine redundancy in this case when the business of the Respondent ceased, and the employment of the Complainant was terminated by reason of redundancy. |
Decision:
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.
CA-00035652 The appeal under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1969-2014 is allowed. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts: Start Date: 30 July 2016 Termination Date: 27 November 2019 Gross weekly wage: €360 The Decision is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment during the stated period. |
Dated: 30th March 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
Statutory Redundancy Pay |