Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Niamh Dullaghan

The Bread & Malt Company Limited

Representatives

Self-represented 

 Did not attend the hearing

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-00060066-001

15/11/2023

The respondent’s business traded as Arun Bakery.  The complainant commenced working there on October 16th 2014.  In her evidence at the hearing, she said that she was registered as the company secretary, but that she also did other work, such as weekend markets, ordering stock and sales.  She worked 19 hrs a week and her weekly pay was €191.90.  Due to the onset of Covid-19 in March 2020, the business closed on March 13th and the complainant claimed the Pandemic Unemployment Payment, known as the “PUP.”  The business did not re-open and, despite her efforts, the complainant said that she has not been able to contact the owner.  She said that she remained on the PUP for a number of months and she is now unemployed.  Her employment was not formally terminated.  The complainant said that, as the company in which she was employed is no longer trading, she assumes that her job is redundant.

At the hearing, the complainant told me that she had a baby in 2020 and another baby in 2023.  In accordance with s.6(1)(g) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended by the Maternity Protection Act 2004), the respondent was prevented from making her redundant until she returned from protective leave.  After the hearing, I wrote to the complainant and asked her to contact her former employer again, to determine when her employment ended.  On March 26th 2024, she sent me an email from the respondent confirming that “there is no longer a job at the Bread and Malt company t/a Arun Bakery for Niamh Dullaghan.”

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

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 the complainant’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.  In accordance with the First Schedule of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, her service is continuous from October 16th 2014 until March 26th 2024, the date on which her employer confirmed that there was no work for her.

Subject to her PRSI contribution status, I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on her service from October 16th 2014 until March 26th 2024.

Redundancy, business closure