Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Bin Liu

Dundrum House Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

Did not attend the hearing

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-00072462-001

16/06/2025

On April 18th 2022, the complainant started working as a chef in the kitchen of the respondent’s public house.  A letter from a director of the company, Mr Paddy Ryan, which he sent to the WRC in advance of the hearing states that the complainant was recruited initially for eight weeks, to cover for a chef on holidays.  He returned in September 2022 and, from then on, he worked for the respondent for two days a week, while he also had another job.  At the hearing, the complainant said that he worked for three and sometimes four days a week.  At the time he finished working for the respondent in May 2025, he earned €16.00 per hour.

Around May 15th 2025, the complainant said that he and the kitchen staff were informed by the head chef, Mr Ross Maguire, that another company would be taking over the kitchen of the pub from May 26th.  I understand from the respondent’s correspondence that this arose when Mr Maguire and the managing director, Mr Ryan, decided to rent the kitchen to a former employee.  The complainant said that he asked the manager of the pub to give him a letter to confirm that the kitchen staff were losing their jobs; however, he said that he didn’t get this letter.

Copies of emails submitted by the complainant show that, on June 5th, he wrote to the respondent’s book keeper and asked, “Can I get redundancy pay please?”  The book keeper replied saying that she understood that the complainant had been offered a job by the new operator, but that he didn’t accept it, and that, for this reason, “redundancy is not applicable.”

The complainant replied on June 8th saying that he had been spoken to about the new position and that he didn’t like it.  He said, “why not just hire someone.” 

On June 9th, the complainant said that he attended his local Social Welfare (Intreo) office, where an officer told him that his employment was terminated on their system.  On June 16th, he submitted this complaint to the WRC, claiming that his job was redundant.

On June 24th 2025, when the respondent was informed by the WRC that a complaint had been submitted, the company’s book keeper wrote to the complainant to inform him that his job wasn’t redundant and that, “there is a position available for you under the same terms under the new kitchen management.”  The book keeper advised the complainant to contact the head chef, Mr Maguire, or the director, Mr Ryan, to discuss his position.  The complainant replied that he was concerned about potential retaliation upon returning to work, claiming that that head chef shouted at him in a degrading way.

On July 2nd, the complainant said that he got an email from the new operator of the kitchen and he was asked to attend work the next day for what he said was a trial shift.  When he completed this shift, he said that he was paid €70.00.  He said that he didn’t accept the payment and he wasn’t offered any more work.     

The complainant said that flights to China were reasonably priced in July 2025 and, on July 10th, he went home to get some dental work done.  He returned to Dublin on September 18th. 

On November 6th 2025, in preparation for a hearing of this complaint, Mr Ryan wrote to the WRC and stated that the complainant was not dismissed, but that he told the former head chef, Mr Maguire, that he didn’t want to work under the new management.  In an accompanying note, Mr Maguire said,

“Under the new employer everyone working for us would automatically keep their jobs and work for the new employer.”

Mr Maguire wrote that the complainant told him that he didn’t want to work for the new kitchen operator and that he had a full-time job elsewhere.  Based on this, Mr Maguire said that he didn’t introduce the complainant to the new operator.  He said that the complainant “is still welcome to work here with the same hours and job title.  His job is still open.”  Alternatively, he said that a job could be found in the pub.

Evidence of the Complainant

A hearing scheduled for December 3rd 2025 was postponed due to the illness of the respondent’s managers.  They were still unavailable on March 5th 2026, when the complainant attended.  In his evidence, the complainant said that the new kitchen operator was from China, and that he met him and he answered questions about the kitchen.  He said that he saw three or four chefs and that a full team was available.  He said that the new operator didn’t offer him a job.  At the same time, he said, “I really don’t want to work in this kitchen.”  He claimed that the staff are lazy.  He said that, although Mr Maguire had asked him to work more days, he only wants to work three days a week.

On June 24th, the complainant said that he got an email from the respondent’s book keeper in which she said that his job is available for him with the new operator.  On July 2nd, he said that he got an email from the new operator, Xing Gou Huang and he worked the next day and was paid €70.00.  He said that Xing Gou Hang didn’t hire him because his hourly rate was too high.

Since October 2025, the complainant said that he has been working in another local pub, where he does 30 or 40 and sometimes up to 50 hours per week.

The circumstances in which an employee may claim a redundancy lump sum are set out at s.7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (amended) and can be summarised as follows:

(a)  The business has closed or has relocated to a different place;

(b)  There is a requirement for fewer employees in the business or at the place where the business was carried out;

(c)  The employer has decided that the work that that was done by the employee could be done by fewer or no employees;

(d)  The job will be done in future by a person who is more qualified or trained than the employee;

(e)  The job will be done by a person who is also capable of other work that the employee is not qualified or trained to do.

The information submitted to me shows that, while the respondent rented out the food service in the pub to a new operator, the business wasn’t closed or relocated, and there was an ongoing requirement for the complainant to remain in his job.  Based on the documents submitted to me by the complainant, I am satisfied that he was not dismissed, and that, if he wanted to continue working, there was a job for him with the new operator. 

At the hearing, the complainant was strongly of the opinion that he had been dismissed, and I found myself almost persuaded by the fervour of his convictions.  A detached review of the facts however, demonstrates that his job wasn’t redundant, but that he decided not to work for the new operator.  I am satisfied that, from May 26th 2025, if he continued turning up for work, his employment would have transferred to the new operator. 

It is apparent from the evidence of both sides that respondent and the new operator failed to comply with the representation and consultation requirements of Regulations 7 and 8 respectively of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (TUPE Regulations).  If these regulations had been observed, this complaint may have been avoided.  However, there is no complaint before me under the TUPE Regulations and I must confine myself to a consideration of the complainant’s case under the Redundancy Payments Act.

I have concluded that the complainant’s job was not redundant, but that he left freely of his own will.  I note that, in his letter to the WRC on November 6th 2025, the respondent’s manager stated that a job remains available for the complainant in the kitchen, or in the pub itself.  Based on this offer, it seems to me that there is no animosity on the part of the management towards the complainant, which gives me further reassurance that the respondent had no wish or cause to terminate his employment.   

I have concluded that the complainant’s job was not redundant and I decide therefore, that his complaint is not well founded.

Redundancy, change of management, transfer of employment