ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029562

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Restaurant Supervisor	Food Service Proprietor

Representatives

self represented

Complaints:

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-00040129-001	28/09/2020
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00040199-001	01/10/2020

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/01/2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The claimant was employed as a restaurant supervisor with the respondent from the 28thMarch 2016 to the 12th.June 2020 when the business ceased operating, and she was made redundant. She asserted that she made her complaint to the WRC when she was advised by the respondent that he was unable to pay her statutory redundancy entitlement. Her redundancy paperwork was complete but when she pursued the matter of payment the Dept. of Social Protection advised that they were unable to make contact with her employer. On foot of this the complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC for non-payment of redundancy.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent confirmed that he had been the claimant’s employer and advised that he had to close the restaurant business at the Club when he was given notice by the club that he was no longer their caterer. He had filled out the redundancy forms with the claimant. He submitted that he did not have the resources to fund her redundancy and confirmed that he did not dispute the merits of her complaint. The respondent advised that he did not obtain a phone until December 2020 and accepted there may have been difficulty in contacting him. He confirmed his address to the WRC.

Findings and Conclusions:

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

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

(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…

On the basis of the evidence presented and the confirmation by the respondent that he did not dispute the complainant’s chronology of events or the merits of her complaint, I am satisfied that the claimant was made redundant on the 26.06. 2020

The complainant was accordingly dismissed by reason of redundancy and I therefore allow the complainant’s appeal.

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.

Complaint No. CA-00040129

I find that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 28.03.2016

Date of Termination: 26.06.2020

Gross Weekly Pay: €489.00

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

Dated: 12th May 2021

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O Shea

Key Words: Redundancy