Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Freda  Cosgrove

Mark Kemple trading as Jazz Hair Studio

Representatives

  In person

 In person

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-00053568-001

06/11/2022

This complaint relates to the complainant’s redundancy entitlements. The complainant’s employment ended on 30th June 2022.

The complainant was employed by Jazz Hair Studio Limited from 7th June 2017 until the entity was dissolved with effect from 2nd May 2018. The complainant’s employment continued until 30th June 2022 and the employer until the termination date was Mark Kemple trading as Jazz Hair Studio.

The respondent outlined by way of verbal submission that the Hairdressers where the complainant worked had closed with effect from 30th June 2022 and that he was unable to pay the redundancy entitlements.

It is not disputed that the complainant’s employment ended by reason of redundancy when the premises closed on 30th June 20222. The respondent stated that he was unable to pay the complainant’s redundancy entitlements.

The Applicable Law

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states as follows:

(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,

I find that the complainant’s employment ended by reason of redundancy in line with Section 7(2)(a) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. On that basis I find that the complaint is well founded.

Having considered the matter, I find that the complainant’s employment ended by reason of redundancy. The complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment as follows:

Date of commencement of employment: 3Rd May 2018

Date of cessation of employment: 30th June 2022

Gross weekly rate of pay: €400.00

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is based on the complainant being in insurable employment within the meaning of the Social Welfare Acts, for the period in question.

Redundancy entitlements