EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
Teresa Cregan-Stack RP798/2013
Mags Ryan / Curves
REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACTS, 1967 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. Clancy
Members: Mr T. Gill
Mr J. Flavin
heard this appeal at Limerick on 13th March 2015
The appellant in person
Cornelius J. Noonan, Solicitors,
"Mitre House", Bishop St. Newcastle West Co. Limerick
The appellant worked for the respondent from 23rd August 2004 until 21st February 2013.
In the months leading up to the end of her employment the appellant was aware of the financial difficulties the respondent was experiencing and considered buying the business from the respondent. However this came to nothing.
It was the appellant’s position that the respondent told her that the business was closing on 30th March 2013 and that she agreed that the appellant could finish earlier than that on 21st March 2013. Therefore the appellant contended that she was entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment.
The respondent had been served with a notice to quit the premises on 30th March 2013 by the landlord.
During the month of March the respondent was considering her options and had offered to sell the business to the appellant. However she did not terminate the appellant’s employment and held that the appellant left of her own volition on 21st March 2013 as she intended to take over the lease on the premises and start her own business. The respondent moved to another premises from the start of April 2013 and told the Tribunal that she would have been happy to continue employing the appellant at the new premises.
Having carefully considered the evidence adduced at the hearing the Tribunal finds that a redundancy situation did not exist at the time of the appellant’s termination of employment and therefore her appeal under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 to 2007 fails.
There was a conflict in evidence as to whether the respondent notified the appellant of an impending closure/redundancy situation and the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the respondent. Furthermore the respondent relocated the business without a break in operations and it was open to the appellant to continue to work with the respondent but she chose instead to start her own business in the premises vacated by the respondent.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal