Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lauren  Carthy McCartan

Cluain Ard Meats trading as The Saucy Butcher

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00063254-001

01/05/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00063254-002

01/05/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00063254-003

01/05/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00063254-004

01/05/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00063254-005

01/05/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 17th July 2017. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €540.00. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy on 31st January 2024.

On 1st May 2024 the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she raised various allegations regarding the termination of her employment. Following a discussion in respect of the same at the outset of the hearing, the Complainant confirmed that her employment had terminated on the grounds of redundancy and that the primary issue in dispute between the parties related to the notice of her termination. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received the majority of the notice of the termination of her employment, and that the within complaint should fail.

A hearing in relation to these matters was convened for, and finalised on, 23rd July 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both sides issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. These submissions were expanded upon and contested by the opposing side in the course of the hearing. The Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaint, while the Respondent called a witness in defense. All evidence was given under oath or examination, and was opened to cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence the Complainant stated that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 17th July 2017. The Complainant was engaged as a food production operative by the Respondent throughout her employment. The Complainant stated that she got on well with management and her colleagues and that she enjoyed working in the role.

On 15th January 2024, various members of the management of the Respondent organisation came to the production facility. On this date, management informed the Complainant that they intended to sell the facility and that her employment may be subject to a transfer of undertakings. This information came as a surprise to the Complainant as she understood that the business was performing well. No contemporaneous written correspondence followed this meeting. Two days later, on 17th January, the Complainant requested written confirmation in respect of the conversation, with correspondence being issued on 23rd January. Notwithstanding the contents of this correspondence, and the earlier conversation, on 26th January the Complainant was subsequently informed that she was to be made redundant on 1st February 2024, some five days later.

Thereafter, on 23rd February 2024, the Complainant received a copy of form RP50 that suggested that the Complainant’s date of notice of termination was 15th January 2024. Given that this was demonstrably incorrect, the Complainant refused to sign the same. The Complainant corresponded with the Respondent informing them of the mistake on the form and stating that she had an entitlement to be paid in lieu of notice in the event that the same was not provided. By response, the Respondent refused to acknowledge their mistake, insisting that 15th January was the date on which notice was received and stating that the Complainant had no entitlement to a payment in lieu of notice.

In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Complainant accepted that she was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment and further accepted that her dismissal occurred on the grounds of redundancy. In this respect it was agreed that the net point of contention between the parties was the date on which notice of termination was received, with the Complainant submitting that she received inadequate notice and that she was subsequently entitled to a payment in lieu of the same.  

From the outset, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was a competent worker that was held in high regard by management a colleague alike.

By submission, the Respondent stated that in early 2024 the Director of the Respondent took the decision to retire from the business in the coming year. As part of this process, the Respondent began discussions with a family member regarding a potential transfer of the business to a different corporate entity. In January 2024, a provisional agreement was reached in relation to the same and management began the process of discussing the matter with the staff to be affected. On 15th January 2024, management of the Respondent met with the Complainant to confirm the position and advise that her employment would transfer over to this new entity. Thereafter, it became apparent that the prospective transferor did not intend to retain all of the Respondent’s staff and it became apparent that the Complainant was to be made redundant. This was confirmed to the Complainant was subsequent correspondence, with her employment terminating thereafter.

By submission, the Respondent stated that she was informed for the position of the company on 15th January 2024. In regard the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was given notice of the their intention to no longer employ the Complainant, but accepted that said notice was not sufficient in the circumstances.

Regarding the present set of complaints, the Complainant has alleged that the Respondent did not give adequate notice of her impending redundancy. While the Complainant referred several complaints under various legislative provisions, it is common case that the employment ended by way of redundancy and that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant received notice on during a meeting of 15th January and, while they accepted that such notice is insufficient, they disputed that the Complainant was informed of her impending redundancy 5 days prior to the same taking effect.

In this regard, the dispute between the parties relates to the content of the meeting of 15th January 2024 between the Complainant and members of management. In this regard, it is common case that the subject of this meeting was to discuss the potential take-over of the business and the Complainant’s potential transfer to an alternative corporate entity. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the Complainant received notice of prospective redundancy during this meeting, indeed it seems that the opposite is the case, with the Complainant receiving confirmation that her employment was to continue. While the Respondent has suggested that notice of the Respondent’s intention to transfer the Complainant’s employment may also serve as notice of redundancy, this is not the case as these represent two fundamentally different outcomes for the Complainant.

Thereafter, it is apparent that the prospective transfer of employment fell through, and that the Complainant role was to be made redundant. While the Complainant has not taken issue with the redundancy element of the complaint, she has submitted that she was not given sufficient notice of the same. Having reviewed the relevant documentation, it is apparent that the Complainant received notice of her impending redundancy on 26th January 2024, some five days prior to the same taking effect.

Having regard to the accumulation of foregoing points, I find that the Complainant did not receive adequate notice of the termination of her employment and that, as a consequence of the same, she is entitled to a payment in lieu of the outstanding notice entitlement on termination.

CA-00063254-001 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

In circumstances whereby this complaint relates to the non-payment of statutory notice, which is recovered by virtue of one of the complaints below, I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00063254-002 Complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act

In circumstances whereby the parties agreed that the Complainant’s employment terminated by way of redundancy, I find that this complaint is not well-founded and that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00063254-003 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act

In circumstances whereby the parties agreed that the Complainant’s employment terminated by way of redundancy, I find that this complaint is well-founded and her appeal succeeds.

Having regard to the totality of evidence presented, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, if the same has not already been discharged, based on the following information.

Date of Commencement:             17th July 2017

Date of Termination:                     31st January 2024

Average Weekly Wage:                 €540.00

CA-00063254-004 Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act

In circumstances whereby this complaint is a duplicate of that listed above, I find that the same is not well-founded, and the Complainant’s appeal fails.

CA-00063254-005 Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 

I find that the Complainant was not provided with adequate notice of the termination of her employment and, consequently, her complaint is well founded.

In circumstances whereby the Complainant was employed for an excess of five, but fewer than ten, years, she is entitled to four weeks’ of notice, or payment in lieu to the value of €2,160.00, under the Act. As the Complainant received of five days of notice in respect of the same, I find that she remained entitled to a payment in lieu of three weeks and two days, or €1,774.29 on the termination of her employment.

Having regard to the totality of the foregoing points, I award the Complainant the sum of €1,774.29 in compensation for the breach of the Act.

Redundancy, Termination, Notice, Transfer