Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Debbie  Murphy

Namelock Tiles And Bathrooms Ltd Designer Tiles

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Non-attendance

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-00063856-001

31/05/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant gave her evidence under affirmation.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. However, I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the details of the hearing as they were sent an invitation by registered post which was not returned. The address to which the notification was sent is the same as is on the Companies Registration Office database which also indicates that the respondent is trading normally as at the date of hearing.

The complainant stated that she was employed the respondent from 14 February 2019. Upon her return from annual leave July 2023, she was contacted by a colleague who indicated that the retail store was closed. The respondent initially informed her that she had to take a week off at her own expense, and followed it up by informing her that she had to take the second week of at her own expense.

On 20 August 2023 the complainant was told by the company director that the store was closing. She was subsequently told that the company was not in a position to pay redundancy to her. She noted that she provided both and RP50 and an RP77 to the respondent and that she was informed by the Department of Social welfare that it had written to the respondent.

Complainant even went as far as getting permission to contact the accountant to try and get to the bottom of things however the company's accountant did not have permission to access all the paperwork but merely an agent's permission. Thereafter, the respondent ceased communications with her she was left with no other option but to take a complaint to the WRC.

The complainant confirmed her start date, her gross weekly pay, and her date of termination at the hearing. She provided correspondence that she had received from the respondent regarding its inability to pay and she also provided a sample pay slip which indicated that deductions were being made in respect of her PRSI, USC and income tax.

The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter.

Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states as follows:

7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(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,

Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that her employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with the Act.

I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and Accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny her redundancy.

Having considered all the relevant information provided by the complainant, I am satisfied that she has established that she is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Acts.  My decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the employer.

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 have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 14 February 2019

Date of Termination: 20 August 2023

Gross Weekly Pay: €722.31

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

Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 – Complainant established entitlement to redundancy – appeal of employers decision not to award redundancy – Statutory Redundancy awarded.