Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rafael  Bispo Dos Santos

TKO Inns Limited

Representatives

Andrew Byrne, Director

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-00080994-001

20/02/2026

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

CA-00080994-002

20/02/2026

The Complainant worked for the Respondent as a chef from 6 June 2023 until 9 February 2026. The Respondent’s business ceased trading, and the Complainant did not receive his statutory redundancy payment or notice pay.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 6 June 2023 and was employed as a chef. He was informed that the Respondent was ceasing to trade and his employment ended  on 9 February 2026. He confirmed that his statutory redundancy payment and his two weeks’ notice pay remained outstanding as of the date of the hearing. The Complainant submitted payslip to the WRC which stated that his gross weekly earnings were €744.50.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant commenced employment on 6 June 2023 and that his last day of work was 9 February 2026. It further accepted that statutory redundancy payment and minimum notice payment had not been made and acknowledged that the monies were due and owing to the Complainant. The Respondent’s representative stated that it had ceased trading and that the payments remain outstanding solely due to an inability to pay arising from insolvency.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted by the parties and the oral evidence adduced at the hearing summarised above.

CA-00080994-001

The Complainant provided evidence of his redundancy, his calculated entitlement and his contention that the statutory redundancy payment had not been made to him. He was informed that the Respondent was ceasing to trade and, as a result, he was made redundant with effect from 9 February 2026. The Respondent attended the hearing and confirmed that the Complainant’s evidence in this regard was correct.

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended.  The Acts, related legislation and Regulations made thereunder require that in order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment, an employee must -

(1)    have at least 2 years’ continuous service;

(2)    be in employment which is insurable under the Social Welfare Acts;

(3)    be over the age of 16;

(4)    have been made redundant as a result of a genuine redundancy situation and/or if on lay-off or short-time, have complied with any statutory notice requirements; and

(5)    not have received a lump sum payment.

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

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 considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the circumstances of the Complainant’s redundancy fall within section 7(2)(a) of the Act. I am therefore satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payments Act 1967, as amended. I am also satisfied that the Respondent had not paid the Complainant any sum in respect of his statutory redundancy entitlement as of the date of the hearing. Gross weekly pay for the purpose of calculating a statutory redundancy lump sum is subject to a ceiling of €600. The calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the relevant Department.

CA-00080994-002

Section 4(2)(b) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides that minimum notice be given by an employer to terminate the contract of his employee -

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

The Complainant advised the hearing that he was employed by the Respondent from 6 June 2023 until 9 February 2026. I am satisfied that the Complainant was entitled to two weeks’ notice. I am also satisfied, on the basis of the evidence adduced, that the Complainant did not receive two weeks’ notice or payment in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is well founded.

CA-00080994-001

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter my decision is to allow the Complainant’s appeal against the failure of his employer to pay a redundancy payment.  I decide the within complaint is well founded and I decide the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy lump sum payment pursuant to the Redundancy Payment Act 1967, as amended based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement: 6 June 2023

Date Employment Ended: 9 February 2026

Gross Weekly Wage: €744.50. This figure is capped at the maximum figure of €600 as his weekly wage exceeded that sum.

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

CA-00080994-002

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the gross sum of €1,489.00 representing 2 weeks’ wages.