ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029720
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vanessa Taheny | Brian Fox trading as the Crozon Inn |
Representatives | Self-Represented | No attendance |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00039276-001 | 19/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/05/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 31st March 2014. During her employment the Complainant earned an average weekly salary of €200 per week. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 10th January 2020. On 19th August 2020, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that while her former employer acknowledged her employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy, he did not process her statutory payment at the relevant time.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 12th May 2022. The Complainant represented herself and gave sworn evidence in support of her complaint. There was no appearance by the Respondent. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 31st March 2014. On 8th January 2020, the Complainant was informed that the premises was to close two days later, on 10th January 2020. At the relevant time the Respondent accepted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy, however the Complainant did not receive a redundancy payment. The Complainant stated that she worked 20 hours per week for which she earned a weekly payment of €200.00 per week. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing to offer any defence of the complaint. I further note that the Respondent did not issue any submission setting out a defence to the complaint. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the hearing. No correspondence has been received post hearing seeking to explain the Respondent’s non-attendance. In light of the foregoing, the matter will proceed in the absence of any defence from the Respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7(2)a of the Redundancy Payments Acts lists the following situation as a valid ground for redundancy; “…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”. This section clearly describes what has occurred in this instance- the Complainant’s employer ceased to carry on business, effectively making her role redundant. Having regard to the foregoing, and the wording of the Redundancy Payments Acts, I 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.
I find in favour of the Complainant and allow the Complainant’s appeal. In the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information. Date of Commencement: 31st March 2014 Date of Termination: 10th January 2020 Average Weekly Wage: €200.00 |
Dated: 4th August 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Redundancy, Ceased Business, Non-attendance |