Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fiona  Reade

Eric Furey T/A Roots Café, T/A Treebase Cafes, T/A Willow Essentials, T/A Rafterys Bar

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Amanda O’Donoghue, Internal HR

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-00071186-001

30/04/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and one witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was offered but not availed of.

The complainant submitted that she was entitled to a redundancy payment on the basis of working for the owner to more than two years.  She confirmed that she worked in a number of different companies, locations and in at least two separate roles.

The respondents witness confirmed that the complainant worked in a number of different roles across a number of businesses owned by the respondent.  She submitted that the complainant did not have the requisite number of weeks to avail of the Redundancy Payments Act.

The complainant worked for a number of different economic entities belonging to the same owner.  She seems to have transferred across limited companies in a confusing blend of locations, for various economic entitles.  However, one fact stands out from the descriptions of both the complainant and the respondent witness in that the complainant willingly took a different role with Willow Essentials Ltd as Manager in mid-September 2024 having been employed by Roots Café (also it appears trading as Treebase Cafes).  She moved from an assistant manager role to that of a manager and there is no dispute that her payslips show the move clearly and that the complainant accepted the change in location and position. 

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.

….

(5) 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.

Rafterys Bar closed down in April 2025 and the complainant was offered a gratuity in May 2025.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that the complainant, although working for the same person, did not have enough insurable week’s work for the respondent to be able to satisfy the requirements of the legislation.

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant did not have the requisite service to entitle her to a redundancy payment and the complainant’s appeal fails.

Redundancy Payment – not entitled – not enough service as per legislation to avail of an entitlement