Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jana  Brhelova

Ushers Quay Merchants Limited

Representatives

Rene Brhelova

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-00070379-001

29/03/2025

The Complainant began her employment on 16 January 2017 as a Chef. She stated that she did not receive her statutory redundancy entitlements when she was informed that her employment was being terminated in August 2024.

The Complainant stated that she began her employment on 16 January 2017 as a Chef. Although she was informed in August 2024 that her employment was being terminated because the Respondent was ceasing operations and going into liquidation, she did not receive her statutory redundancy entitlements.

Although I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the time and date of the hearing, they did not attend to give evidence on the day.

The Redundancy Payments Acts state 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

(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, 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,…”

Analysis:

It was not disputed that the Respondent ceased operations at the location where the Complainant was employed.

In light of her uncontested evidence above, I find that the conditions for redundancy have been met under the legislation, and accordingly, I allow the Complainant’s appeal.

I allow the appeal for the reasons set out above and find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment under the Redundancy Payment Acts 1967 – 2012 based on the following criteria: 

-          Date of commencement: 16 January 2017

-          Date of termination: 31 August 2024

-          Gross weekly wage: € 609.60

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