ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038550
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Prakan Chaunsoung | Thai Orchid Restaurant (Thai Cafe) |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00049726-001 | 16/04/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following 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.
Specifically, 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.
The Complainant as well as a Director of the Respondent, Frank Mullan, attended the hearing and gave evidence. As the facts were not in dispute, it was not necessary to take either sworn evidence or evidence on affirmation.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a Head Waiter with the Respondent from 1 June 2002 and earned €414.27 per week. He stated that although his employment ended by way of redundancy on 29 January 2022, he did not receive a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant started work as a Head Waiter with the Respondent on 1 June 2002 and earned €414.27 per week. He stated that the restaurant was closed as a result of the Covid restrictions in March 2020 and that he was informed on 29 January 2022 by the one of the directors that it would not be re-opening for business. He stated that he has still not received a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
While the Respondent gave evidence of the extensive efforts that he made to keep the business open, he nonetheless accepted that the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of redundancy as the premises where he worked closed for business. |
Findings and Conclusions:
THE 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) 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. FINDINGS Having heard the evidence from both the Complainant and Respondent, as outlined above, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I allow the Complainant’s appeal and find that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 1 June 2002 - Date of termination: 29 January 2022 - Gross weekly wage: €414.27 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 4th May 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|