ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054476
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Barber | A Barber’s Shop |
Representatives | Self | Self |
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-00066378-001 | 30/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00066378-002 | 30/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/06/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with 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.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing 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 parties were advised at the outset that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised. Following an application by the Respondent and I have decided to exercise my discretion and anonymise the names of the parties in this decision. The Complainant did not raise any objection to this request. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation. All evidence was taken on affirmation in this case.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
The parties are not named in this document and are referred to as “the Complainant” and to “the Respondent.”
The parties’ respective positions are summarised hereunder followed by my findings and conclusions and decision. I received and reviewed documentation prior to the hearing. All evidence and supporting documentation presented has been taken into consideration.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a barber by the Respondent. She commenced employment on 06/06/2006 and ended when the Respondent closed the business on 29/06/2024. She submitted her complaints to the WRC on 30/09/2024. She worked 19 hours per week and was paid €12.70 per hour. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant outlined that she worked in the Respondent’s barber shop from June 2006 until the end of June 2024. She was advised by the Respondent on 05/06/2024 that the shop would close at the end of Jue 2024 unless a buyer could be found. There was no buyer. The Complainant gave evidence that she sent an email to the Respondent seeking a redundancy payment but did not receive anything. She also confirmed that she did not receive any notification of the Respondent’s inability to pay her a redundancy payment. The Complainant was cross examined by the Respondent. She confirmed that the business was set up in 2006 while she was in a relationship with the Respondent. That relationship ended in 2014. The Complainant agreed that the Respondent paid for all the fixtures and fittings. The Complainant was asked what happened the fixtures and fittings when the shop closed. She explained that she put two items on a selling website and received €200 for one and €100 for the other. The Complainant also stated that she had upgraded those items some years previously herself. The Complainant also confirmed that she had a bank card which gave her access to the business account. She stated that she done the lodgements for the business. In response to a question from the Adjudication Officer the Complainant confirmed that he received a contract of employment from the Respondent in 2014 and this is confirmation that she is an employee. She also confirmed that she was paid on a monthly basis and received payslips from the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent gave evidence on affirmation. He believed that the Complainant was not entitled to any redundancy payment as she was a beneficial owner of the business and another family member was also a partner. The Respondent stated that the Complainant made lodgements and payments. The Respondent also believes that the Complainant disposed of the assets of the business. The Respondent confirmed that there are no assets or funds to make a redundancy payment. The Respondent confirmed that the business remains closed and his accountant is dealing with whatever needs to be done to complete the closing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant submitted her complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 30/09/2024. There are two complaints submitted alleging breaches of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967: CA-00066378-001: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The specific complaint is that the Complainant did not receive a redundancy payment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. CA-00066378-002: This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. The specific complaint is that the Complainant did not receive proof of her employer’s inability to pay redundancy - Statement of Affairs (Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967). The Law: Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts outlines five different scenarios where “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 for business of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased to 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 a place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease of 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 has 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. It was submitted by the Complainant that there is clear and unequivocal evidence that the Respondent has ceased to carry on the business for which she was employed. It is a matter of fact that she was advised by the Respondent via email on 05/06/2024 the shop where she work closed at the end of June 2024. This shop and did not open again. The Redundancy Payment Act 1967 Section 7(1) gives a general right to redundancy: “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 which was so insurable in the period of two years ending on that date.” I am also satisfied that the Complainant meets the definition of an “employee” as specified in the Act: “employee” means a person who has entered into or works under (or, in the case of a contract which has been terminated, worked under) a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, is express or implied, oral or in writing and whether it is a contract of service or apprenticeship or otherwise, and “employer” and reference to employment shall be construed accordingly”. I have carefully considered and reviewed the documents, submission and evidence provided at the hearing. As the Respondent closed the shop on 30/06/2024 the Complainant’s contract of employment ended on that date. I find that the date of dismissal is 30/06/2024 and that this was a dismissal in accordance with section 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. The Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum. Her payment is to be calculated according to the following criteria: Employment start date: 06/06/2006 Employment end date: 30/06/2024 Gross weekly remuneration: €241.30 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
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.
CA-00066378-001: I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum. Her payment is to be calculated according to the following criteria: Employment start date: 06/06/2006 Employment end date: 30/06/2024 Gross weekly remuneration: €241.30 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00066378-002: I have decided that this complaint is well founded and the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with the required proof of his employer’s inability to pay redundancy - Statement of Affairs (Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967). |
Dated: 4th July 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Redundance payment. No statement of inability to pay. |