ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053208
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Brian Teeling | Atrium Hair Studio |
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-00065138-001 | 01/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014,followingthe 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 employed as a part time barber with the Respondent from 1 March 1984 to 31 May 2024. He earned a gross weekly wage of €285.95. He stated that he did not receive his statutory redundancy entitlements when his employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy on 31 May 2024. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that he did not receive his statutory redundancy entitlements when his employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy on 31 May 2024. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend on the day of the hearing to give evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
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 On the basis of the evidence presented to me, namely that the Respondent “has ceased,…. to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed”, I am satisfied that the Complainant was dismissed by reason of redundancy and is entitled to a redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014. |
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 allow the Complainant’s appeal and find that he is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2014 based on the following criteria: - Date of commencement: 1 March 1984 - Date of termination: 31 May 2024 - Gross weekly wage: € 285.95 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 26-11-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Breiffni O'Neill
Key Words:
|