ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048339
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Nike Sanni | Maxnrich Limited |
Representatives | Not represented | Did not attend the hearing |
Complaint:
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-00059554-001 | 20/10/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014, this complaint was assigned to me by the Director General. A hearing opened on February 19th 2024 for the parties to have an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint. The complainant, Ms Nike Sanni, was accompanied by her son. No one attended for the respondent, Maxnrich Limited. On the form she submitted to the WRC on October 10th 2023, it appeared that Ms Sanni used the incorrect address for the respondent. Following the scheduled hearing on February 19th 2024, a new hearing was arranged for April 17th 2024, and the notice of the hearing was sent to the respondent at the correct address. Ms Sanni attended again, accompanied by her son. No one attended to represent the respondent on this second occasion either. I have therefore reached the conclusions which are set out below based on the uncontested evidence of the complainant, Ms Sanni.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Ms Sanni worked from September 14th 2021 until September 27th 2023 for a cleaning business based at 3 Swanward Business Centre, Ballymount Road Upper, Dublin 12. She cleaned offices and, when her employment ended, she was earning €15.00 per hour. Ms Sanni said that, on September 25th 2023, the business development manager, Mr Michael Tuck, told her that the company was closing down. Her last day at work was September 27th 2023. At the hearing, Ms Sanni presented her payslips from the date that she commenced working for the respondent until her last day at work. When she started with the company in September 2021, it was called MHC Cleaning Contractors, but in 2023, the name changed to Maxnrich Limited. Ms Sanni claims that she was dismissed by Maxnrich Limited due to the closure of the company and that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is: “(a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose 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[.]” As Ms Sanni’s employer has ceased operations in the place where she was employed, her job has become redundant. As she has completed more than two years of service, she is entitled to a redundancy payment. |
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.
Subject to her PRSI contribution status, I have decided that Ms Sanni is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on her hourly rate of pay of €15.00 and her service from September 14th 2021 until September 27th 2023. |
Dated: 22nd of April 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Business closure, redundancy |