Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Catherine  O'Connor

Killarney Gift Shop Ltd  trading as Candle with Care

Representatives

Self-represented

Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00069203-001

11/02/2025

The complainant submitted a complaint that she was entitled to a redundancy payment. The respondent submitted that a redundancy situation does not exist and denies the claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

Ms. O’Connor worked part-time with the respondent on varying hours up to 9 hours per week until December 2024. She submitted in evidence a notice that the business website was closing on 16th December 2024. She understood that the business was closing as the Director was retiring. She submitted an RP50 Form to the Director who did not sign the form. In January/February 2025, she worked a few hours on piece work as it became available, although she gave this up due to her caring responsibilities. She claims a redundancy payment from 25th September 2020 up to 16th December 2024.

Summary of Director’s Evidence

Ms Nolan gave testimony that the business closes over Christmas every year as they stop taking orders. She said the business re-opened on 17th January 2025. Although the complainant worked a few hours in January/February 2025, she had informed her that she was unable to do some of the more strenuous work. The Director asked Mr Lane to assist with the work until he then left. She did not sign the redundancy forms as the business was not closing.  There were continuous customer orders and she carried out this work now herself. She said the complainant was not dismissed.

Summary of Mr Lane’s Evidence

Mr Lanes gave testimony that he had known the Director for 12 years and he worked hours when he was asked to assist. He said he was not aware that Ms Nolan was retiring. He said that since he left, the Director was undertaking this work herself.

The Law

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 –

The fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

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…

Finding

The respondent denies that a redundancy situation exists. The two respondent witnesses gave testimony that the business was not closed and that the work continues to be carried out. The complainant initially presumed that the business was closing at the end of 2024. However, she also gave testimony that she did some hours in January/February 2025. She then did not work due to her caring responsibilities.

For the reasons outlined, I decide that a redundancy situation did not exist, as defined by Section 7(2) of the Act.

I decide that the complainant’s appeal is not well founded. 

I decide that the complainant’s appeal is not well founded. 

Redundancy