Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Karolina  Rzasa

Mario Limited

Representatives

Suzanne Buck South Connacht Citizens Information Service

 Management

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-00045790-001

23/08/2021

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a barista. Employment commenced on 27/04/2016 and ended on 03/07/2021. The Complainant worked 39 hours per week and was paid fortnightly at the gross rate of €907.00.

 This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 23/08/2021.

The Complainant contends that her workplace closed down on the 03/07/2021.

The Respondent never give any notice in relation to the exact date of the closing of the business.

The Complainant received a phone call on the 07/07/2021 from her manager telling her not to come to work the following day because they had started clearing out the place.

In evidence the Complainant stated that due to the Covid pandemic business had gone very quiet and that she had worked every day.

The complainant was talking to different people regarding a job as she was aware that the business was closing down.

The Complainant also contends that due to Covid there were two periods of the coffee shop being closed and that she was the last person working in the coffee shop.

The Respondent states that the Complainant was not made redundant and that no redundancy situation arose.

The definition of redundancy in Ireland is set out in the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 - 2014.

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 purpose 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.

In the instant case the Complainant was instructed (via telephone) on 7th July 2021 not to attend work the following day as the process of clearing out the coffee shop had commenced and was ongoing.

No notice pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act of 1967 was issued to the Complainant however it was more than obvious that the Respondent had or was going to cease trading at the Complainant’s place of employment.

I am satisfied that this was a genuine redundancy situation and now declare that the complaint as presented is well-founded.

I now order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant her statutory redundancy entitlement.

I am satisfied that this was a genuine redundancy situation and now declare that the complaint as presented is well-founded.

I now order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant her statutory redundancy entitlement.

Redundancy