Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lauren Roche Flynn

Ronin Management Consultancy Limited T/A  Hipkey Café                 [in Liquidation]

Representatives

Self-Represented

Neither the Respondent nor the Liquidator attended the hearing.  

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-00064832-001

17/07/2024

The Complainant claims entitlement to a statutory lump sum payment arising from the termination of her employment with the Respondent.  This matter came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 17/07/2024 as a complaint submitted under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.  The aforesaid complaint was referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place on 31/10/2024.  

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Head Chef at all material times.  The Respondent is a company in liquidation.   The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 07/12/2021.  Her employment ended on 28/02/2024.  The Complainant was paid €827.43 gross per week for which she submits she worked 40 hours. 

This complaint seeking statutory redundancy arises in circumstances where the Complainant’s employment was terminated, and she has neither received payment of a statutory lump sum nor confirmation of a return to her former role.  The Complainant seeks statutory redundancy in circumstances where her employment ended on 28/02/2024 and she has processed her claim to the WRC on 17/07/2024.  

CA-00064832-001

The Complainant submits she was verbally notified on 06th February 2024 that she would be made redundant.  The Complainant submits she was informed the company would be liquidated and her last day was to be 28th February.  The Complainant has made efforts to contact the Respondent requesting updates on the situation but she received none.  The Complainant confirmed on affirmation that she has not received a redundancy payment from the Respondent. 

CA-00064832-001

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing.  I note the Respondent has not engaged with the WRC or filed any written submissions or documentation.  In the circumstances no evidence has been proffered on behalf of the Respondent. 

CA-00064832-001

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of hearing by the Complainant together with the documentation requested at hearing and submitted by her post-hearing.  I have carefully considered the uncontested oral evidence adduced by the Complainant at hearing on affirmation.  It was clarified to the Complainant at the outset that the single claim properly before me at hearing was her complaint pursuant to section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.

The Relevant Law:

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)    have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)    be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)    be over the age of 16;

(4)    have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)    not have received a lump sum payment. 

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 be dismissed byreason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe 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 heard and carefully considered the uncontested evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s situation is in compliance with section 7(2)(a) set out above.  The business has ceased trading and to carry on business in the place where the Complainant was employed, and her work has ceased.  I am satisfied the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-2014. 

I am satisfied that the Respondent has not paid any monies to the Complainant in respect of her redundancy at the date of hearing. 

In circumstances where the Respondent has ceased to carry on business where the Complainant was employed, I find a redundancy situation applies and I find the claim for a redundancy payment to be well-founded.  The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following facts established in evidence:

Commencement date:  07/12/2021

End of employment:  28/02/2024

Gross weekly pay:  €827.43

The Complainant was made aware of the fact than any award made under the Redundancy Payments Acts is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts 1952-1966.  The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00.  The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant department. 

CA-00064832-001

I allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of her employer to pay a redundancy.  I decide the within complaint is well-founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967 based on the following criteria:

Commencement date:  07/12/2021

End of employment:  28/02/2024

Gross weekly pay:  €827.43

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

Company in liquidation; statutory redundancy;