Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bartosz  Schoen

Nilands 24-7 Europhil Service Station Ltd.

Representatives

Self-represented 

No attendance

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00061048-001

16/01/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00061048-002

16/01/2024

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 3 May 2022. His employment was terminated with no notice on 19 September 2023. He was paid €364 gross per week.

The Complainant referred his complaints to the Director General of the WRC on 16 January 2024.

An adjudication hearing for the purpose of investigation of the Complainant’s claims was scheduled for 18 June 2025. Correspondence informing the parties of the arrangements for the hearing issued on 14 May 2025. It was issued to the Respondent’s address as provided by the Complainant. A copy of the hearing letter was subsequently issued to the registered address of the Respondent.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent at the hearing. There has been no communication from the Respondent indicating any difficulties with attending the hearing or requesting a postponement. The Complainant attended the hearing.

The Complainant submits that, along with other staff, he was informed on 15 September 2023 by a group WhatsApp message that a receiver would be appointed. The Complainant submits that the Respondent informed the employees that it is in consultation with its legal team and “cannot further comment or say anything that would infringing on further proceedings”.

The Complainant submits that on 19 September 2024 he received another group text informing him that the business would not reopen.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not issued its employees with any information regarding any redundancy entitlements, nor has it issued RP50 forms.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent.

The Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 (as amended) and Regulations made thereunder provide that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must (1) have at least two years’ continuous service, excluding any period of employment with that employer before the age of 16 years (2) be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts, (3) be over the age of 16 and (4) have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation.

The relevant portion of Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides 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…”

Section 7(2) of the Act stipulates that redundancy arises when an employer ceases business in the place of employment, as in the within case. 

Section 7(5) provides that

“In this section “requisite period” means a period of 104 weeks' continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short-time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years.”

Based upon the Complainant’s uncontested evidence, I find that the Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 3 May 2022 and his employment terminated on 19 September 2023. The Complainant did not have the requisite two years’ continuous service and, therefore, has no entitlement to the statutory redundancy lump sum.

I do not allow the Complainant’s appeal. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I decide that the Complainant does not have the requisite service with the Respondent and, therefore, is not entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum under the Redundancy Payments Acts.

The Complainant asserts that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment or payment in lieu thereof.

There was no attendance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent.

The Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 as amended provides that every employee who has been in the continuous service of an employer for a period of 13 weeks or more is entitled to a minimum period of notice, varying from one week to eight weeks according to the length of service.

“4. Minimum period of notice

(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

(d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

(e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.”

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find that he had been in continuous service with the Respondent from 3 May 2022 to 19 September 2023. In line with subsection 2(a) of section 4 above, he was, therefore, entitled to one week’ notice.

I declare this complaint to be well founded. I find that section 4 was contravened by the Respondent in relation to the Complainant. I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant €364 in compensation for loss sustained by the Complainant by reason of the contravention.

Redundancy – minimum notice