ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058786
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Veronica Hynes | Chamberbrook Limited t/a Brownes On The Green |
Representatives | self | Did not attend |
Complaint:
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-00071392-001 | 07/05/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 31/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
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. Both parties were advised that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence on oath or affirmation.
The parties were also notified of these changes by the WRC in the letter confirming details of the hearing.
While the parties are named in this document, from here on, I will refer to Mrs Veronica Hynes as “the Complainant” and to Chamberbrook Limited as “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 commenced employment with the Respondent on 19/08/2019. She worked 40 hours per week and was paid €600.00 gross per week. She submitted a complaint to the WRC on 07/05/2025 seeking adjudication under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation. She commenced employment on 19/08/2019 as a waitress and worked consistently since then. She was paid €600.34 gross per week and provided a copy of her pay slip to confirm this. The Complainant gave evidence that while on a day off on 06/04/2025 she received a phone call from the Respondent’s manager who told her not to come into work the following day as the business was not closed. She received no written confirmation and had no contact with the Respondent since then. The Complainant also outlined that she was not paid for public holidays. The Complainant gave evidenced that the Respondent did not pay any redundancy to her or to issue any proof on their inability to pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not engage with the WRC and did not respond to a telephone call on the day prior to the hearing. I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the date time and log on details of the hearing. There was no evidence that the Respondent was in liquidation. The status of the company on the Companies Registration Office as of the date of the hearing was listed as “normal”. |
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-00071392-001: 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. 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 telephone call on 06/04/2025 the restaurant was closing and going out of business. This restaurant 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 restaurant on 06/04/2025 the Complainant’s contract of employment ended on that date. I find that the date of dismissal is 06/04/2025 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: 19/08/2019 Employment end date: 06/04/2025 Gross weekly remuneration: €600.34 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-00071392-001: Based on the uncontested evidenceI 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: 19/08/2019 Employment end date: 06/04/2025 Gross weekly remuneration: €600.34 This award is made subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. |
Dated: 19-11-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Redundancy payment. |