Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Emma  King

Music and Montessori Academies Ltd

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00051598-001

08/07/2022

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in August 2016 as a Montessori teacher. The complainant states that on 21 November 2021 while out on maternity leave, she received a message advising that the school where she was employed in Drumcondra was closing down. The same message was sent out to parents and staff of the school by the respondent.  

The complainant states an offer was made to her to return to work at the respondent’s Celbridge location and this location was changed to Maynooth on 8 April. The complainant states that on 11 April after considering all the required changes to the job she had in Home Farm Rd. Drumcondra in comparison to the new location of Maynooth, she found the change of location to be unreasonable. In this regard the complainant states the change to the new location would include extra hours travelling in traffic, childcare costs, crossing the toll bridge twice daily etc. She states that she would now be required to wake her child at 6.00 am. The complainant states that she contacted the respondent and enquired about the possibility of statutory redundancy but the respondent did not reply to this request.  

The respondent states that the complainant was employed by the company for two separate periods. It states that initially the complainant worked for the company from 2011 to 2015 when she resigned her position. The respondent states that in 2016, she asked if there was a position available and was offered another position in the school. The respondent states that at this juncture, staff were retained on 10 month contracts beginning in September and ending in June. In September 2018, the company moved to new contracts based on advice from its HR company. The respondent asserts that staff were advised that these new contracts would be permanent and would carry forward year to year. The respondent states that September 2018 was the commencement of a permanent position with the company.

The respondent states that during the Spring of 2020, the complainant had a discussion with Ms. O Riordan, the operator of the school and a company director. The respondent states that during the conversation the complainant indicated that childcare costs would make a return to work following her maternity leave impossible for her. The respondent asserts that as there was another worker due to take maternity leave, it was suggested that a job sharing arrangement might suit them both. The respondent states that neither staff member engaged with this discussion. The respondent submits that at this point, the company took it that the complainant would not be returning to work following her maternity leave. The respondent contends that Ms. O Riordan did not see the need to formalise this discussion at this point as the complainant is her sister.

The respondent states that during the Covid shutdown, the school was served notice on its premises in Drumcondra by its landlord on the grounds of fire safety, having been a tenant for some 28 years. The school was forced to close in December 2021. The respondent states that the complainant was offered a position in one of its other schools but that the complainant immediately declined this offer stating that childcare costs and travel costs made that impossible for her.        

I have carefully considered all of the evidence adduced in the within claim. Based on the evidence heard I am satisfied in all of the circumstances that it was reasonable for the complainant to turn down the offer of a move to the new location in Maynooth based on childcare issues including childcare costs, extra travelling time required etc. I note in her testimony that she stated she would now be required to wake her infant at 6 am and that the move to the new location would constitute a significant change in her terms and conditions of employment. In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the within complaint is well founded. Accordingly, I find that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts.

I find that the complainant’s claim is well founded and she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following:

Date of commencement: 1 September 2016

Date of termination: 17 September 2021

Gross weekly pay: €298

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.

Redundancy Payments Acts