Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Donna  Murphy

KC Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Ltd

Representatives

 Peninsula Business Services

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00069302-001

15/02/2025

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

CA-00071188-001

30/04/2025

The complainant complains that she was unfairly dismissed. The respondent responds that the complainant left her employment of her own accord and was not dismissed.

The respondent confirms that a conversation took place between the complainant and the business owner on January 9th, 2025, in the course of which he advised her of trading difficulties and that she would be ‘laid off’.

The respondent accepts that this may not have been handled well, or communicated clearly, and the complainant might have misunderstood what was being proposed. Nonetheless, she ultimately left of her own accord.

It is accepted that due to the company’s financial position there was a delay in paying her redundancy.

Keith Cunningham, Director of the respondent gave evidence on affirmation.

He stated that the company was experiencing financial difficulties, and he approached the complainant and stated that she was being placed on temporary layoff. He had been expecting that she would be at work the following day and that details of the layoff could be discussed with her but she did not turn up for work.

He could not confirm whether the complainant had ‘packed up’ her office the previous day following their conversation.

He denies that he agreed when she asked if ‘that’s that’ in response to her asking him whether it was the conclusion of her employment. He says that he told her it was a temporary situation. He recalls that the complainant did ask him what she was entitled to.

There was no further contact with the complainant until he received the RP9 Form. Initially he did not fully understand what it was but in due course he accepted it.

That concluded his evidence.

The respondent sums up by saying that this was a lay off followed by an application for redundancy. In that sense the complainant left her employment voluntarily.

This may not have been properly communicated but it was soon clarified and represents the final position.

In the circumstances no claim arises under the Minimum Notice Act either.

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation.

On January 9th Mr. Cunningham’s wife was in the office. She left after a while, saying she was going to the bank. At approximately 12pm, Keith Cunningham (the witness above) arrived at the office and asked how things were and what was going on. A few minutes later he returned and said he needed to "say something".

He proceeded to tell her that he no longer had a job for her and had to let her go. He said the business was not doing well, that there wasn't enough money in the business and that he could no longer afford to pay her anymore from the following day. 

She responded by saying she was shocked  and that she didn't expect this and did not know what she could say. He said sorry and there was nothing he could do. she said, "so that's that?" and he said it was and apologised again. He did not say that this was short term or temporary.

She then began to pack up her personal belongings. He repeated that he was sorry again a few times and then said if she needed anything to let them know. She said she would like to know her entitlements.

He hesitated again and said, "well you wouldn't know if down the line what will happen, maybe things will turn around, maybe in eight to ten weeks we will be in a better place". Again, he did not assure her that this was only temporary. He said he would get the work phone off her later. She handed it back and said "sure she don't need it now. You've told her I 'm finished" He took the phone, said sorry again and left.

She cleared out her personal possessions and left. When she went home, she rang social welfare, WRC and the CIS for advice. She had not received any written confirmation of termination or notice. she then contacted the respondent on Monday, 13th via email regarding entitlements. Their response on Tuesday 14th (dated 10th) suggested for the first time that this was a temporary layoff and not a termination which is completely at odds with what occurred.

 She concluded that the position was not going to change so she decided to wait the required four weeks until February 7th before she could submit her redundancy request by means of the RP9.

When she did not hear from them, she sent her RP9 form, requesting her redundancy.

In response to questions from the respondent’s representative she confirmed her signature on the RP9 form and the relevant declaration.

The complainant confirmed that she had no losses attributable to the termination as she had started her own business.

Complaint CA-00071188-001 MN

The respondent stated that she was not entitled to any notice as she had requested voluntary redundancy.

However on their form for her statutory redundancy it states her termination of employment date was February 7th. she did not get paid for this four week period. 

What exactly happened at the meeting between the complainant and the respondent on January 9th is contested, specifically in relation to whether the respondent made it clear that he was placing the complainant on lay off (his version) or terminating her employment (her version).

Both parties gave sworn evidence to the hearing, and their respective account of the conversations are contradictory on this key point.

Favouring the complainant’s version is the respondent’s suggestion that there was a ‘misunderstanding’ by her, and that there was a ‘miscommunication’. This might be regarded as a sort of coded acceptance that the complainant has done no more than report what was actually said, as opposed to what the respondent wished he had said with the benefit of hindsight.

It may reasonably be seen as a sort of begrudging acknowledgement that the complainant’s version is correct and that the respondent made a mess of the situation on the day; subsequently acting to correct it by issuing a letter of clarification, dated the following day, and received by her four days later.

Also favouring the complainant’s version is that both it, and her evidence were credible. I have no doubt that on the balance of probability she was told on January 9th that her employment was being terminated, but that, having had second thoughts this was downgraded to a layoff.

There was some vague reference by the respondent to a possible upturn in the future, but it was no expressed in the manner it was subsequently framed and the overwhelming thrust of the respondent’s approach to her was to terminate her employment.

That said, the respondent’s re-framing then becomes a material consideration in determining whether the complainant was unfairly dismissed as will be seen shortly.

Because the precise construction of that conversation is rendered academic by the complainant’s next actions. She then acted on the position exactly as the respondent claimed had been his intention, albeit belatedly. She served Form RP9 on the company and in due course was paid a statutory redundancy payment.

While there were somewhat imprecise references to this being a ‘voluntary’ redundancy, the fact remains that the termination was ultimately triggered by the complainant’s actions, and not those of the employer.

So while one interpretation of the conversation on June 9th is that the complainant’s job was being terminated, the complainant’s acquiescence in the revised (or clarified) status of her employment which appears in the letter of January 10th, although not received by her until January 14th changed everything and, as noted makes the precise nature of the earlier disputed conversation irrelevant.

Accordingly, I find that here was no unfair dismissal.

On these same facts I find that she was not entitled to a notice payment so that complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons set out above I find in respect of CA-00069302-001 that the dismissal was not unfair and that Complaint CA-00071188-001 is not well founded.

Dismissal, Redundancy