Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Maureen  Needham

Granard Motte Community Enterprise (Gmce) Clg

T/A Knights & Conquests Heritage Centre

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00075276-001

09/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00075276-002

09/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00075276-003

09/09/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00075276-004

09/09/2025

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

CA-00075276-005

09/09/2025

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 two witnesses for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation.  Relevant cross examination was facilitated.

At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”.

CA-00075276-001 Payment of Wages

The complainant submitted that she did not receive her wages on 6 December 2024

CA-00075276-002 Organisation of Working Time

The complainant submitted that she did not receive payment for 8 days annual leave that she was owed.

CA-00075276-003 Unfair Dismissals

The complainant submitted that she was unfairly dismissed when the respondent engaged in a sham redundancy.

CA-00075276-004 Protected Disclosures

The complainant submitted that she was penalised after having made a protected disclosure regarding her line manager when she was not allowed to return to work following a period of sick leave.

CA-00075276-005 Redundancy Payments Act.

The complainant submitted that she was not paid her statutory redundancy payment when she was made redundant.

Oral Evidence:

In her evidence the complainant outlined that she was entitled to 8 days annual leave. She stated that she initially made a protected disclosure on a verbal basis and this was followed up by a written protected disclosure made to the chair of the board.

She stated that her manager excluded her from work when she wouldn't allow her to return following a period of sick leave sick leave. She stated that following the making of the complaint her manager treated her unfairly and that her boss was very unhappy with her. She stated that her manager would raise her voice and made her feel that she was outside the team.

She stated that she made a complaint to her employer.  They told her that they looked at her complaint but did not find any evidence of her being bullied or harassed. She stated that she wanted to go back and repeatedly requested the roster for the following week but none was ever provided to her. She confirmed that she was paid for the entire period up until she was made redundant, save for one week which remained outstanding.

The respondent did not avail of cross examination.

CA-00075276-001 Payment of Wages

The respondent accepted that it had breached the Act when it withheld payment of a week’s wages that had accrued to the complainant.

The respondent indicated that the complainant did not sign its severance agreement, and the payment was never made to the complainant.

CA-00075276-002 Organisation of Working Time

The respondent accepted that it had breached the Act when it withheld payment in respect of 8.1 days that had accrued to the complainant.

The respondent indicated that the complainant did not sign its severance agreement, and the payment was never made to the complainant.

CA-00075276-003 Unfair Dismissals

The respondent denied unfair dismissal noting that all employees were made redundant on 1 April 2025.

CA-00075276-004 Protected Disclosures

The respondent denied that the complainant was penalised having made a protected disclosure.  The disclosure was investigated but was found to have no substance.  The complainant’s line manager was never informed of the existence of the disclosure and could have not penalised her arising from it.  Additionally, the complaint’s line manager ceased working for the respondent in early December 2024 and played no part in the complainant return to work following a period of sick leave.

CA-00075276-005 Redundancy Payments Act.

The respondent accepted that the complainant had an entitlement to a Redundancy Payment and noted that it withheld the payment when the complainant did not sign its severance agreement.  Accordingly, the payment was never made to the complainant.

Oral Evidence:

The first witness for the respondent outlined that complainant’s manager resigned at the beginning of December 2024 and after that it was not possible to bring the complainant back to work as there was no one to supervise her work. Ultimately the respondent decided to make all its staff redundant and to restructure the business, given that most of what they did was conducted by volunteers. He confirmed that the complainant was not paid her wages for one week through an error but confirmed that the money was owing to her. He also confirmed that there were 8 days holidays owing to her and noted that they were simply waiting for her to sign the severance agreement before they paid anything else to her.

Under cross examination, he noted that the centre reopened in September 2025 and that all the previous roles were gone. He stated that the service offering was entirely different following the restructure. He noted that the marketing role that the complainant had occupied has not since been filled.  He noted that the complainant had not been excluded from work but confirmed that the centre had been closed and that she was unable to return to work.

The second witness also confirmed that the centre had to close, noting that they were not able to keep it open as they were not able to fill any positions. She stated that they did not fill the manager position and then decided to restructure the whole business. She confirmed, under cross examination, that since that date, the centre had opened in that it had been rented out to private clients. She also confirmed that the manager left in December 2024.

CA-00075276-001 Payment of Wages

The respondent accepted that it had breached the Act.  Accordingly, I find that this complaint is well founded. In the circumstances compensation of a week’s wages is appropriate, this works out at €261.45 as calculated from the complainant’s payslip as submitted at the hearing.

CA-00075276-002 Organisation of Working Time

The respondent accepted that it had breached the Act.  Accordingly, I find that this complaint is well founded. Arising from this, I require the employer to pay the complainant €2000 in compensation which I consider to be just and having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint.

CA-00075276-003 Unfair Dismissals

The respondent indicated that all staff were made redundant on 1 April 2025, the complainant did not dispute this. All remaining staff were made redundant.   Accordingly, I find that the complaint was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00075276-004 Protected Disclosures

The complainant submitted that she made a Protected Disclosure and provided documentary evidence at the hearing.  This contention was not disputed by the respondent however it was noted that the complainant’s line manager was not aware that the complainant had made the disclosure.

The complainant submitted that the penalisation primarily consisted of not being allowed to return to work by her line manager, whom she had made the complaint about.  THE line manager had already left the respondent ‘s employment at that time.  In the circumstances where there was no one to work to, the respondent kept paying the respondent and ultimately in February decided to close the cent, to restructure its service offering and to make all remaining employees redundant at that time.

Having regard to the evidence put forward by the complainant and to the operating circumstances of the respondent, I am not certain that the complainant has established that she was penalised for making a protected disclosure.  Accordingly. I consider that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075276-005 Redundancy Payments Act.

The complainant submitted that she was employed by the from 3 April 2023 until her employment ceased by way of redundancy on 1 April 2025.

Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states 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,

Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, which was corroborated by the witness for the respondent, I am satisfied that her employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with the Act on 1 April 2025.

CA-00075276-001 Payment of Wages

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act has been contravened and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €261.45

CA-00075276-002 Organisation of Working Time

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act has been contravened and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2000 having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint.

CA-00075276-003 Unfair Dismissals

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00075276-004 Protected Disclosures

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00075276-005 Redundancy Payments Act.

Having considered all the relevant information provided by the complainant, I am satisfied that the complainant has established that she is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Acts.  My decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the employer.

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.

I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 3 April 2023

Date of Termination: 1 April 2025

Gross Fortnightly Pay: €526.50

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

Payment of wages – breach conceded – award of compensation – Organisation of Working Time Act – breach conceded – award of compensation – Unfair Dismissal – not established – Protected disclosure – penalisation not established – Redundancy Payment – entitlement established