ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044581

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Shanon Davis	Jackie Moore t/a Angel Hair

Representatives

Self-Represented

Not present

Complaint(s):

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-00055443-001	08/03/2023

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/06/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 following 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.This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Hairdresser when the business suddenly closed due to Covid and never reopened. The Complainant did not receive any redundancy pay. The Respondent did not attend the Hearing;

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Hairdresser from June 16th 2018 to January 21st 2023 when the business suddenly closed.

The Complainant earned 226.23 Euros per week gross.

The Complainant advised in evidence that she was informed by the Owner that the Owner could not afford to continue the business and she did not receive any redundancy pay due to the closure of the business.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A Complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission by the Complainant on March 8th 2023 alleging that his employer contravened the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2020 in relation to her. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A Hearing for that purpose was held on June 23rd 2023. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the Hearing. The Respondent notified the WRC in advance of the Hearing that the business had closed due to Covid, there was no funds to pay the redundancy due and she would not be attending the Hearing.

Decision:

This is a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, to the effect that the complainant was made redundant due to the closure of the business and she did not receive a redundancy payment.

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which states as follows:

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 years 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”.

The Complainants situation complies with Section 7.2(a) above.

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. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I allow the Complainants appeal and I award her statutory redundancy on the following basis 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.” Therefore, subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, and subject to being confirmed by the appropriate Government Agency, the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis;

Date of Commencement; June 16th 2018

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: January 21st 2023

Gross Weekly Wage: 226.23 Euros

The Complainants period of “Reckonable Service” is defined by Schedule 3 of the Act and does not include any period of absence from work due to lay off by the employer.

I allow the Complaints Appeal.

Dated: 03-07-2023

Key Words:

Redundancy