ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052235
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marie Kiernan | Sandra Conway trading as Liaqubell Flower Bar |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Self-Represented | Self-Represented |
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-00062954-001 | 19/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged as a florist with the Respondent organisation. While the Complainant’s commencement date was the subject of the hearing, it is common case that the Complainant’s employment terminated on 14th February 2024 on the grounds of redundancy. Toward the end of the Complainant’s employment, she worked for 20 hours per week and earned an average weekly wage of €300.00
On 19th April 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, she alleged that the Respondent failed to discharge her statutory redundancy payment. While the Respondent accepted that the Complainant was made redundant within the meaning of the act, she submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to such a payment as she did not have the level of service required by the Act.
A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 23rd September 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 by either party in the course of the hearing.
Both parties gave evidence in support of the complaint and the defense to the same. No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. |
Summary of the Complainant’s Case:
In evidence, the Complainant stated that she commenced work in the business under a former owner on 20th October 2020. She stated that on 5th December 2023, the Respondent purchased the business, and that her employment transferred over to her as a sole trader. On 14th February 2024, the Complainant was informed that her services would no longer be required due to a downturn in business. Following the same, the Complainant enquired as to her entitlement to statutory redundancy. By response, the Respondent stated that the Complainant was not entitled to any such payment as she did not have the required service. The Complainant disputed this position, as she stated that she commenced employment under the former owner some three and a half years earlier and, following the transfer or her accrued service, had an entitlement to statutory redundancy. Notwithstanding the same, the Respondent refused to pay the amount due and owing. In answer to a question posed by the Adjudicator, the Complainant stated that she did not have a contract of employment, or any paperwork from her former employer. Nonetheless, she stated that she was certain of her commencement date, and was absolutely certain that it was not some two years later, as suggested by the Respondent. |
Summary of the Respondent’s Case:
In denying the allegations raised by the Complainant, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant transferred to her employment when she purchased the business in late 2023. As part of the transfer process, the Respondent received solicitors’ correspondence stating that the Complainant, and all other staff members commenced employment in July 2022. The Respondent stated that she relied on this correspondence to confirm the Complainant’s commencement date and, as a consequence of the same, the Complainant did not have the service required by the Act in respect of a statutory redundancy payment. In this regard, the Respondent stated that she issued a contract of employment with the July 2022 commencement date to the Complainant, however she refused to sign the same. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Regarding the present case, the Complainant has alleged that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. In this regard, she submitted that her correct commencement date is 20th October 2020. In circumstances whereby her final date of employment was 14th February 2024, she submitted that service was such that a payment under the impleaded Act would accrue. In the alternative, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not have sufficient service as required by the Act. She submitted that on her purchase of the business, she was informed that all members of staff commenced employment in July 2022. In circumstances whereby the Complainant had therefore accrued less than two years of service, she submitted that no she was not entitled to any statutory payment. In this regard, it is noted that many points are in agreement between the parties. It is accepted that the Complainant transferred to the present employer in manner consistent with the Transfer of Undertaking Regulations, and that her service will be deemed to be continuous from the date of her commencement with her former employer. It is further accepted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy as outlined in the impleaded Act. In such circumstances the net point to be decided relates to the Complainant’s correct commencement date with her former employer. During the hearing, the Complainant gave sworn evidence to the effect that she commenced employment on 20th October 2020. When pressed on this point, she stated that she was confident that this was the correct start date, albeit she accepted that she had no documentary evidence to confirm this position. In the alternative, the Respondent sought to rely on solicitor’s correspondence, issued around the time of the transfer, stating that the Complainant and all other staff members commenced in July 2022. In this respect, the Complainant has given direct sworn evidence in support of her claim, while the Respondent is seeking to rely on correspondence issued by a person that was not themselves a witness to the matter at hand. In such circumstances I prefer the evidence of the Complainant and find that her commencement date was 20th October 2020, and that consequently she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment in the manner prescribed below. |
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.
I find in favour of the Complainant and allow the Complainant’s appeal. In the circumstances the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following information. Date of Commencement: 20th October 2020 Date of Termination: 14th February 2024 Average Weekly Wage: €300.00 |
Dated: 11th December 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dolan
Key Words:
Commencement Date, Transfer, Redundancy |