Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Imelda  Hoey

Southmark Ltd Superfresh

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00055708-001

20/03/2023

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

CA-00055708-002

20/03/2023

The Complainant commenced her employment as a Shop Assistant with the Respondent on 15 October 2001 and was paid €378.75 per week. She stated that her employment ended on 30 March 2022 and claimed that she did not receive either her redundancy or her notice entitlements.

The Complainant commenced her employment as a Shop Assistant with the Respondent on 15 October 2001 and was paid €378.75 per week. The shop closed on 27 March 2020 because of the Covid lockdown, further to which the Complainant was placed on temporary lay-off. The Complainant was subsequently informed on 30 March 2022 that the shop would not be re-opening and that her position was therefore redundant. She stated that she did not receive a statutory redundancy payment and also alleged she did not receive her minimum notice entitlements.

The Respondent accepted both that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 30 March 2022 and that she did not receive her statutory entitlements.

CA-00055708-001:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 further states: -

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

and

“(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

FINDINGS 

I note that although the Complainant’s employment with the Respondent ended on 30 March 2022, her complaint under the Payment of Wages Act was not submitted to the WRC until 20 March 2023, more than eleven months afterwards.

In the absence of any reasonable cause having been given at the hearing to explain the delay in presenting this complaint, I do not have jurisdiction the matter in accordance with the legislation outlined above.

CA-00055708-002:

THE LAW

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 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.

(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.

FINDINGS 

As both the Complainant and the Respondent stated that she was dismissed by reason of redundancy and did not receive her redundancy entitlements, I find that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014.

CA-00055708-001:

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above.

CA-00055708-002:

I allow the Complainant’s appeal for the reasons set out above and find that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria: 

-          Date of commencement:  15 October 2001

-          Date of termination: 30 March 2022

-          Non-reckonable break in service: 27 March 2020 – 30 March 2022

-          Gross weekly wage: €378.75

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