Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Annmarie  Walsh

Faye Dooley t/a Wexford Study Hub

Representatives

  Self

Self

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-00039701-001

09/09/2020

The complainant worked as a and Manger for the respondent who operated a supervised study hub for students preparing for state examinations.  She commenced employment on 19/08/2013.  She was paid on an hourly rate which equated to €223 gross per week.  The business shut down on 25/03/2020 and did not reopen.  The complainant is seeking redundancy and submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 09/09/2020.

The complainant worked for the respondent for six and a half years.  The business closed in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  She discovered from a Facebook post by the respondent on 21/08/2020 that she did not intend to open again.  The complainant submitted a copy of the Facebook post which read “It is with great sadness that I have decided not to reopen the Study Hub in September.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for all their support.  The Study Hub was an absolute joy to go into every day and I had so many lovely students come through the door each year.  The Study Hub was a great opportunity for me and I am so grateful for it to have been such a success over the years.  I would also like to thank Ann-Marie Walsh who was there by my side for majority of the study hub journey.  I wish everyone wo found value in the Study Hub continued success in their future”.

The complainant submitted that she did not receive any written notice of this closure and was not informed of it.  She was not given an opportunity to collect personal items and was not paid for time owed.

The complainant had a telephone conversation with the respondent on 22/5/2020 and there was no talk of closure at that time.  After learning of the closure, she obtained advice from Citizens Information and was advised to contact the respondent and claim redundancy.  She sent the respondent an e mail and attached the form RP77.  However, the respondent did not complete the forms.  The respondent sent an e mail reply to the complainant on 08/09/2020 and set out that she had informed the complainant in the telephone call that she should actively seek further employment and that she would be happy to provide a reference.  The respondent also told the complainant that if things changed she would have “first refusal on the job”.  The respondent also informed the complainant that she was not made redundant as her employment ended every summer and recommenced in September.  There were never any guarantee in relation to her employment.

The complainant submitted that she is seeking what she is owed.

At the outset of the hearing the respondent confirmed that the correct legal entity was “Faye Dooley, trading as Wexford Study Hub”. 

The respondent confirmed that she operated a study hub for a number of years and catered for between 65-70 students.  She had two employees, one of whom was the complainant.  The business had to close due to the pandemic and this left her facing a lot of difficulties in obtaining payments and in sorting out various matters.  She decided not to reopen and in a telephone conversation with the complainant on 22/05/2020 she advised her to actively seek alternative employment and that she would be happy to act as a referee.  If things changed she would be happy to have the complainant back working for her.

The respondent accepts that the complainant was employed by her from 19/08/2013 and that they worked well together.  The respondent also accepted that she did not give the complainant any written notice about the closure of the business.  The respondent does not accept that the complainant was unable to access personal items as she had a set of keys to the study hub and could have entered the premises and collected anything she had left there.  She was not advised of what the complainant had left there.

The respondent confirmed that she did not check what the complainant was entitled to but had suggested to the complainant that she would be happy to speak with the person in the Citizens Advice Centre.  However, the complainant proceeded to submit her complaint to the WRC.

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (“The Act”), sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment.  The first instance is:

“(a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease to carry on that business in the   where the employee was so employed […]”.

Section 7(1) (a) of the Act also provides that the following are required:

(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 years ending on that date”.

The definition of “continuous service” is set out in Section 4 of the Schedule 3 of the Act:

“… employment shall be taken to be continuous unless it is terminated by dismissal or by the employee’s voluntarily leaving the employment”.

Redundancy occurs where an employee’s position ceases to exist, and the employee is not replaced.  Any employee aged 16 or over with 104 weeks’ continuous service with an employer is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in this situation.  In this case it is not disputed that the respondent ceased to carry on the business for the purpose of which the complainant was employed.  The respondent confirmed at the hearing the complainant was and employee since 19/08/2013.  In those circumstances the complaint was in continuous service. It is also not disputed that the complainant did not voluntarily leave her employment and also that she was not dismissed.

Having considered the evidence and circumstances I find that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum based on her weekly wages of €223 and her service from 19/08/2013 until the business ceased on 25/03/2020.  This is subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

I decide that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, in accordance with the following criteria:

Employment start date: 19/08/2013

Employment end date: 25/03/2020

Gross weekly remuneration: €223.00

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

Redundancy.  Closure of business.  Notification