ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059041
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Rosie Cullen | Philip Davis |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00071699-001 | 20/05/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00072127-001 | 05/06/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2014, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses presents. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The matter was heard by way of a remote hearing on 9 October 2025, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The correct Respondent is Mr Philip Davis. Mr Davis was content that this name be used as the Respondent title.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 9 March 2020 as a manager in the dog training and care facility. Her employment ended on 24 December 2024. Two complaint forms were lodged with the WRC. The first form was lodged on 20 May 2025 and contained a specific complaint under the organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The second complaint form was lodged on 5 June 2025 and contained a specific complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The Respondent is a sole trader trading as Good Dog Training and Day Care.
|
CA-00071699-001 Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that when her employment ended with the Respondent she was owed €960 in holiday pay. The Respondent told the Complainant in May 2025 that he would not be able pay her this money. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Respondent explained his serious financial and personal difficulties. The Respondent stated that he had never denied that he owed the Complainant her holiday pay but he was just unable to pay her due to his severe financial difficulties. He agreed a sum of €960 is owed to the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent finds himself in an unfortunate situation with regard to his finances. However, he owes the Complainant €960 in holiday pay and this amount must be paid to her. Perhaps some method for payment can be reached between the parties which would satisfy the Complainant and not place an undue burden on the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €960. |
CA-00072127-001 Complaint under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Summary of Complainant’s Case The Complainant stated that her employment ended on 24 December 2024 and she had not received a redundancy payment from the Respondent. When she contacted the Dept of Social Welfare in May 2025, she was told that no application for a redundancy payment had been made on her behalf by her former employer. She contacted him about this but she did not hear anything back from him. In June the Respondent contacted her to say he had sent off an application for her redundancy. At the date of hearing, the Complainant had not received a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant had been looking for a redundancy payment. He is in no position to pay a redundancy lump sum. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find the Complainant was made redundant and as her former employer is not in a position to pay her a redundancy lump sum she should be paid a redundancy lump sum from the Social Insurance Fund. |
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.
Accordingly, the claim under the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007 is allowed and the Complainant is awarded a statutory lump sum under those Acts, and based on the following: Date of Commencement; 9 March 2020. Termination Date; 24 December 2024. Gross weekly pay; €600. The award is made subject to the appellant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 2nd December 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Holiday pay, redundancy payment, Social Insurance Fund |