DJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00042258
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adelina Irina Robu | Nail Garden Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Adelina Irina Robu | Nail Garden |
Representatives | self | No show |
Complaint(s):
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-00052949-001 | 23/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
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.
Background:
The Complainant commenced her employment as an assistant at the salon on or about the 18th of October 2019. Her employment was terminated on or about the 3rd of September 2022. She received notice of termination on or about the 27th of August 2022 due to trading difficulties. The Company registration number is 593413 and the Registered name is Nail Garden Limited, and the Registered address is Unit 3 Phibsborough Shopping Centre, Phibsborough Road, Dublin 7. The Company was notified of the hearing by registered post. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave sworn evidence that her employment was terminated arising from redundancy and no payment as prescribed by the Act has been made to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was properly notified of the hearing by registered post and failed to attend at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy and no statutory redundancy payment was made to her. Statutory Redundancy Entitlement: Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states: (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, Having heard the evidence that the Complainant had been dismissed as the business has ceased trading and/or intends to cease trading and to carry on business in the place where the employee was employed and that her work has ceased, 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 based on the following facts: 1. Start date: 18th of October 2019 2. Date of notice of termination: 27th of August 2022
3. Date of termination by employer 3rd of September 2022 4. Contract date of termination including 2 weeks’ notice 16th of September 2022 5. Gross weekly wage Reckonable service under the Redundancy Act 1967 as amended is detailed at Schedule 3: 8. During, and only during, the 3-year period ending with the date of termination of employment, none of the following absences shall be allowable as reckonable service — (a) absence in excess of 52 consecutive weeks by reason of an occupational accident or disease within the meaning of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, (b) absence in excess of 26 consecutive weeks by reason of any illness not referred to in subparagraph (a), (c) absence by reason of lay-off by the employer. During lay-off the absence does not count towards reckonable service as detailed on the Gov.ie site and information on Covid Payments and Redundancy: Any period spent on Jobseeker's Payments or COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment is considered a temporary lay-off. Any period where an employee was laid off is not included as a period of reckonable service when calculating the statutory redundancy payment. By email on the 6th of April 2022 the complainant confirmed the following: My name is Adelina Irina Robu, case number CA-00052949-001 I'm writing to you regarding the meeting we had today. I confirm that by my counting I have worked for Nail Garden for 106 weeks excluding the pandemic lockdowns. I was let go without a legal notice, only 3 days before closure. Please find attached my last payslip for this company. The Act at Schedule 3 provides for pro-rata determination of service: 2. If the total amount of reckonable service is not an exact number of years, the “excess ” days shall be credited as a proportion of a year. Statutory Redundancy is calculated as follows: Number of years’ service: 2.04 years Weeks due under the scheme: 2 x 2.04 = 4.04 + an additional week= 5.04 weeks Wage ceiling under Scheme: €600 Statutory redundancy entitlement: 5.04 weeks x €367.10 gross weekly wage = €1850.18 I determine that the complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy.
|
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.
Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states: (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, Having heard the evidence and the fact that the business has ceased trading and/or intends to cease trading and not to carry on business in the place where the employee was employed and that her work has ceased, 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 based on the following facts established at the hearing; based on evidence given under oath and documentary evidence presented at the hearing and subsequently, including payslips: 1. Start date: 18th of October 2019 2. Date of notice of termination: 27th of August 2022 3. Date of termination by employer 3rd of September 2022 4. Contract date of termination including 2 weeks’ notice 16th of September 2022 5. Gross weekly wage €376.10 Statutory Redundancy is calculated as follows: Number of years’ service: 2.04 years Weeks due under the scheme: 2 x 2.04 = 4.04 + an additional week= 5.04 weeks Wage ceiling under Scheme: €600 Statutory redundancy entitlement: 5.04 weeks x €367.10 gross weekly wage = €1850.18 I determine that the complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy on the facts as detailed. |
Dated: 11-05-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Statutory Redundancy |