Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aldona  Pivoriene

Grosvenor Services

Representatives

Vidmantas Pivoras

 Brian Solan

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-00042850-001

04/03/2021

The Complainant claims statutory redundancy payment from the closure of a Department Store.

The Complainant stated that she worked for Respondent cleaning at Department Store “D” from 20th August 2009 to 23rd March 2020, when the Store closed.  It went into liquidation in April 2020.  The Complainant stated that she lived very near the store and as she does not drive, walked to work which was some 7 minutes’ walk from her home.  In the last six months, she worked in or around 39 hours per week.  She was offered alternative position by the Respondent in May 2020 which amounted to 12.5 hours, would have involved working 5.30 – 8pm, and was further away from her home.  She declined the offer.  She heard no more until January 2021, when she asked the Respondent for an update on the situation.   The Respondent then offered her 13 hours and 13.5 hours but at two different sites.  This was unacceptable as it would have meant travelling to two different locations and it was just not possible for her to do so.  The Complainant submitted relevant  RP forms to claim statutory redundancy but the Respondent refused to sign them on the grounds that suitable alternatives were available.  In the circumstances, the Complainant believes that offers of alternative employment were not reasonable and she was entitled to statutory redundancy.     

The Respondent stated that the Department Store closed all its stores in March / April 2020 due to bankruptcy.   At the time of the closure, the Complainant was working an average of 25.5 hours per week according to the last 8 payslips. In May 2020 she was offered 12.5 alternative hours which she turned down.  She was asked if she would like alternative offers to be made to her but she did not respond.  In January 2021 following contact from the Complainant, the Respondent offered her 13 weekly hours at one site and a further 13.5 weekly hours at another site.  The offer was turned down.  It is the Respondent’s position that although it was a challenging time with Covid, most employees at the site were provided with alternative hours, and the Complainant was offered alternative hours, similar to those she worked at the Store.  As the Complainant refused reasonable offers, there is no redundancy payment due.

I note that the Store closed in March 2020. Some eight weeks later the Complainant was initially offered 12.5 hours per week as alternative hours at a site that would entail a longer journey for her to attend work.  She however, declined this as an unreasonable offer.  I note the evidence demonstrates that the Complainant worked more like an average of 35 hours per week.   After a long hiatus, the Complainant was offered 26.5 hours, spread over two sites.  While the challenges of the pandemic are rightly referred to by the Respondent, the practicality of the situation as it pertains to the Complainant’s situation provides focus on the reality of what constitutes reasonable alternatives.  I accept the evidence that the spread of the hours over two different sites would have caused undue hardship for the Complainant.

Section 7 (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as amended provides the general right of an employee to redundancy payment.

Section 15 (2) provides that an employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment in certain circumstances:

15 (2) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if

(a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the new contract as renewed, or of the new contract as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee

(d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract   and

(e) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

Having considered the evidence, particularly the comparative hours worked and the fact that the most recent offer of the Respondent entailed split hours and locations, I find that the Complainant in this case did not unreasonably refuse the offer and she is entitled to a redundancy payment.

Redundancy, Reasonable alternative.