Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  Moran

Rhd Leisurewear Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-represented

              , Managing Director

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-00062687-001

09/04/2024

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.  However, there was no evidence in contention and the parties agree with the evidence provided by the witnesses.

The complainant submitted that she was made redundant on 31 October 2023.  She submitted that the employer indicated that he would try to pay a redundancy payment but ultimately was not in a position to do so.

The complainant submitted that she started work on 15 April 1988 and that her weekly salary amounted to €281.25 per week.

The complainant confirmed these details in her evidence.

The witness for the respondent confirmed that the complainant was made redundant on 31 October 2023. He confirmed that he had indicated that he would try to pay a redundancy payment but ultimately was not in a position to do so due to lack of funds.

The witness confirmed that the complainant started work on 15 April 1988 and that her weekly salary amounted to €281.25 per week.

Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states as follows:

7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), 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, 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,

Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that her employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with the Act.

I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and Accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny her redundancy.

Having considered all the relevant information provided by the complainant, I am satisfied that she has established that she is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Acts.  My decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the employer.

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 have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 15 April 1988

Date of Termination: 31 October 2023

Gross Weekly Pay: €281.25

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

Redundancy Payments Act – redundancy established – employer unable to pay