Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Florist

Flower Retailer

Representatives

  Self

none 

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-00039982-001

22/09/2020

The complainant was employed as a florist by the respondent commencing employment in April 2002.  The shop in which the complainant was employed ceased trading without notice in March 2020.  The complainant has not received payment in respect of his consequent redundancy.

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a florist in the respondent’s retail outlet.  His employment commenced on 22 April 2002.  On 10 March a supplier arrived with a delivery but there was no money available to pay for the delivery.  The complainant sought to contact the owner in this regard but to no avail.  On the following day the complainant was told by the owner that the shop was closing due to lack of stock and that it might not re-open.  On 14 March the complainant received short notice by text of a meeting called by the owner.  He was unable to attend the meeting and the owner would not agree to a postponement.  On 16 March the owner telephoned the complainant and asked if he would consider opening the shop himself but he refused as it would entail paying a number of debts owed by the business.  The complainant received job-seekers benefit with effect from 18 March.  At the time of the closure the complainant was working 24 hours per week.

Efforts by the complainant to get the respondent to pay his redundancy lump sum were unsuccessful.   

There was no appearance by the respondent.  I am satisfied that the correspondence was sent to the business address of the respondent.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken as being 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…

In the case before me the complainant was employed by an employer who ceased trading without notice.  Having considered the evidence before me I am satisfied that the complainant has been made redundant and that no payment has been received by him in relation to that redundancy.

Complaint No. CA-00039982-001:

Based on the evidence before me I find this complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012, to be well founded.  As proof of income the complainant submitted his PAYE / USC Statement for Tax Year 2019 from Revenue. The complainant is therefore entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement:     22 April 2002

Date of Termination:            17 March 2020

Gross Weekly Pay:                 €253.29

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Redundancy Payment Acts      Closure of Business