ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049835
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mark Deegan | Revolution Point Limited t/a The Brown Pig |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00061162-001 | 23/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/04/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
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. The parties were afforded the opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given under oath or by affirmation.
Background:
The complainant says he was redundant when the outlet where he was working closed. The complainant attended the hearing. The respondent did not attend but I am satisfied he was on notice of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits he started working for the respondent on 14 June 2021. Following a transfer of undertaking with his previous employer, his contract recognises his service as being from 3 January 2016. On 24 January 2023 he received notice the outlet was closing and given one week’s notice from that date. He received no offer of an alternative position that was available. On 25 January 2023 the complainant emailed the respondent asking him to issue an RP50 redundancy form. The respondent did not reply. He followed it up in June. The respondent replied he had offered the complainant 2 alternative positions. The complainant submits any offer would have been unsuitable, as he was living in Cavan, with a direct bus to his employment. The complainant submits he has been made redundant but was not paid his statutory entitlement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and made no written submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint is made under the Redundancy Payment Act and the complainant alleges the respondent made him redundant. He received an email from the respondent on 24 January 2023 stating he was closing all outlets he had in a chain of food stores. The complainant was given one week’s notice. The complainant started work in the same store, working directly for the store, the day after the outlet closed. He was not offered alternative employment by the respondent. The respondent said he could look at the complainant working for him in a different location, if the job in the store did not work out. This does not amount to an offer of employment withing the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Act. The complainant sent an RP77 form to the respondent but got no response. I have to decide if the complainant is entitled to receive a redundancy payment. Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides that an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be 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 for the purposes 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, 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, or (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,“ It is clear that the complainant’s employment finished because the outlet where he was working was closed by the respondent. I find that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 succeeds and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following:
Start date: 03 January 2016 Termination date (when RP9 served): 25 January 2023 Weekly gross pay: €865.00 These awards are made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
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.
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 that the complaint succeeds and award the complainant a redundancy lump sum based on the following: Start date: 03 January 2016 Termination date (when RP9 served): 25 January 2023 Weekly gross pay: €865.00 These awards are made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 4th July 2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Redundancy |