Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anna  Mikolajczyk

Monika Kowalska ta Monikas Hair Studio

Representatives

  Self Represented

Self represented

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-00046555-001

06/10/2021

The Complainant was working as a Hairdresser and the business stopped trading in the location it was based due to Covid as it could not pay the rent and the Complainant was seeking redundancy pay.

The Complainant worked from March 15th, 2017, to April 30th, 2021, as a Hairdresser.

The business closed down where it was based, and the Complainant was laid off.

The Complainant worked part time and earned 240 euros per week paid USC but not PRSI.

The business was not closed, and the Complainants job remained open for when the business could reopen.

The owner was not able to pay the rent for the premises as there was no income due to the pandemic.

The Complainant took leave for 3 months and the owner was looking for a new premises which she could afford.

General right to redundancy payment is covered by the Redundancy Payments Acts.

“7.— (1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four year ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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, 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, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,”.

This is a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, to the effect that the Complainant was made redundant and did not receive a redundancy payment. Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2020 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. Section 4. (1) of the Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.”  Based on the evidence of the Parties (no payroll documentation was submitted and the Parties where unclear what social contributions were paid on behalf of the Complainant) it is unclear if the Complainants employment meets the requirements of Section 4 (1) regarding social insurance contributions to enable her to qualify for redundancy and in the absence of such evidence I disallow the Complainants appeal.

I disallow the Complainants appeal.