ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043381
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rita Masterson | Claire Noble T/A The Beaumont Bakery |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-represented. | Did not attend |
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-00054067-001 | 08/12/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/05/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967following 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.
On this date, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses.
The complainant gave evidence under affirmation.
The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant has submitted a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2016. The complainant was employed by the respondent as a shop assistant in the respondent’s bakery from 7/2/2005 to the 3/9/2022, when the respondent closed the business due to financial losses, and she was made redundant. She worked thirty-four hours a week for which she was paid €380 gross. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 8/12/2022.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. She stated that she was employed as a shop assistant from the 7/2/2005 to the 3/9/2022 in the respondent’s bakery. On the 9 /7/22 the respondent’s solicitor wrote to the complainant advising her that the bakery would cease to trade on 3/9/2022 due to a loss of business. The respondent advised the complainant verbally of this fact the at the same time. The complainant accepts that it was a genuine redundancy. On the 3 /9/22, the complainant submitted a RP 77 form to the respondent but heard nothing further from her. She asks the adjudicator to find in her favour. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was notified of the date and time of the hearing and was telephoned on a number of occasions to establish her availability. She advised that she not attend and though notified of the procedures for a postponement, chose not to apply for one. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Relevant Law.
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:
For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 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. (c) n/a (d) n/a (e) n/a” Based on the uncontested evidence, it is clear that this is a redundancy within the ambit of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2016. I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details: Date of commencement of employment: 7/2/2005 Date of termination of employment: 3/9/2022 Gross weekly pay: €380
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I find that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 -2014, in accordance with the following details: Date of commencement of employment: 7/2/2005 Date of termination of employment: 3/9/2022 Gross weekly pay: €380.
This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 14th June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Entitlement to redundancy. |