ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00030712

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  20/03/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.                                                                                      

Background:

The 6 complaints listed (1 being a duplicate) were received on 29/10/2020 and were scheduled for hearing on 12/07/2022.  At the hearing both parties confirmed that the complaints were settled. By letter dated 19/07/2022, the solicitor at the time, for the Respondent (solicitor A) wrote to the solicitor for the Complainant (solicitor B) confirming settlement in the amount of €3,586 and that all matters were withdrawn with the exception of the redundancy claim which could be activated if the settlement amount was not paid.  On 09/11/2022 the solicitor for the Complainant (solicitor B) wrote to the WRC to state that as the settlement was not paid, he requested that “the redundancy order be issued”.   On 26/01/2023 the solicitor practice for the Complainant came off record due to the death of the principal solicitor (solicitor B) who handled the case.  On 22/02/2023 the Complainant wrote to the WRC stating that she had been in contact with the practice of solicitor B and she was not taking up the offer of engaging another solicitor due to the cost involved.  At the hearing on 20/03/2025, the Complainant represented herself and the Respondent was represented by solicitor C a different firm of solicitors than solicitor A.  At the beginning of the hearing, the claim for redundancy received by the WRC on 29/10/2020 was deemed to be the claim before the Adjudication Officer.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

On behalf of the Respondent (who was absent due to illness), it was acknowledged that the sum of €3,586 was agreed as a settlement in this case.  It was stated that the sum of €2,000 was paid by solicitor A to the law firm of solicitor B on 01/09/2022.   The solicitor for the Respondent outlined the background and history of the situation between his client and the Complainant.  In 2020 due to the challenges of the Pandemic Covid 19, the shop was closed and the Complainant did some work from home.  When the Respondent required the Complainant to return to the physical workplace, she could not get a definite answer from her.  This necessitated a letter dated 07/07/2020 from the Respondent to the Complainant in which she stated her disappointment that clarity in return to work date was not forthcoming from the Complainant.  The letter also stated that as the business was going through challenges including an 83% reduction in sales, it was no longer possible to keep the Complainant’s job open for her.  

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant stated that she had been working from home mainly on the Respondent’s website and social media.  Circumstances were such that she was unable to return to work in July and she was made redundant from her position on 07/07/2020.  She received no such payment of €2,000 as stated.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note the withdrawal of the following complaints and confirm the closure of:

CA-00040698-001            Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

CA-00040698-002            Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

CA-00040698-004            Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

CA-00040698-005            Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

CA-00040698-006            Payment of Wages Act 1991

CA-00040698-003            Redundancy Payments Act 1967

I note the Respondent’s representative submitted that a sum of €2,000 was paid to a solicitor for the Complainant and I note the Complainant stated she did not receive this sum and that it was not passed on to her by the firm of solicitor B who is deceased since November 2022.  This is a separate matter which may be dealt with by the parties.  In this instant case, I am solely bound to examine the facts in relation to the ending of the Complainant’s employment and the relevant legislation.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Acts provides:

“(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

(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, 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 had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise..

In this instant case, I note the dispute between the parties in or around 07/07/2020 when the Respondent had difficulties getting the Complainant’s agreement or proposed date to return to the workplace.  In circumstances, where she then unilaterally ended the employment, the Complainant could have been said to have been unfairly dismissed without due process.

However, I note the letter dated 07/07/2020 stated that the business was going through significant challenges including an 83% reduction in sales.  In that case, it could be reasonably deduced that the requirements of the business for the employee to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where she was so employed had ceased or diminished or were expected to cease or diminish.

I find that the Complainant in this case is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints  in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

Based on the findings and reasons outlined, I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment based on the following criteria:

Date of commencement of employment:               15 August 2015

Date of termination of employment:                       07 July 2020

Gross weekly pay:                                                         €336

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

Dated:   06-05-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: