Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mehmet Arda  Ozkinali

Ail Group Ltd t/a Gourmet Burger Kitchen (Gbk) Ireland Ltd

Representatives

Self-Represented

Company Operations Manager

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-00076298-001

13/10/2025

The issue in contention was a claim for Statutory Redundancy against a Restaurant Chain. The Complainant, a Crew member, alleged that he had not received Statutory Redunadcy on the unexpected closure of the suburban Shopping Centre Restaurant, where he had been employed, in August 2025.

The rate of pay, as stated by the Complainant, had been €231.58 for a 30-hour week. The employment had begun on the 18th of June 2022 and ended on the 7th August 2025

The Complainant was self-represented. He gave an Oral Testimony supported by copy e mails and correspondence from the Respondent.

He had been on agreed Annual Leave in early August 2025. On his return to work he had been informed that the Restaurant in a Suburban Shopping Centre had closed unexpectedly on the 28th July 2025. Copy e mail notices from the Respondent were exhibited. On the 29th of July he had been offered work in another Branch of the Chain in the City Centre. This was impossible for him personally and on the 6th of August 2025 he had sent an email formally resigning from his position at the Suburban Restaurant.

It was his strong contention that the offer of work in the City Centre was a false offer to deflect the Redundancy costs from the Respondent.  He had been employed for most of his time in the Suburban branch and was due Redundancy. The work offered by the Chain was at best very precarious and he wanted to seek more stable work.

In any event, as disclosed at the Hearing, the City Centre Branch / Restaurant also closed in the start of 2026.

The Respondent was represented by the Operations Manager.  He gave an oral Testimony supported by a comprehensive written submission.  Detailed correspondence was exhibited. On the 29th July 2025, by letter, a detailed offer of an alternative role in the City Centre had been offered to the Complainant. The letter sets out in specific points the similarities with his role in the Suburban centre. The rate of pay was identical. The Respondent felt that the travel times to the City Centre were reasonable and should not be an obstacle. The Complainant lived in an area with very good public Transport - LUAS and Bus.

It was the Respondent position that a reasonable offer of alternative work precluded any claim for Redundancy. On this basis no Redundancy had been paid.

3:1         The Legal Position -Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments Act,1967

The Redundancy Payments Act of 1967 is quite clear on the provision that a Complainant who turns down a Reasonable Offer of Alternative Work is not able to claim a Statutory Redundancy Payment. Section 15 is quoted below.

Disentitlement to redundancy payment for refusal to accept alternative employment.

15.—(1) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if —

(a) his employer has offered to renew that employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would not differ from the corresponding provisions of the contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect on or before the date of the termination of his contract, and

(d) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2) An employee shall not be entitled to a redundancy payment if —

(a) his employer has made to him in writing an offer to renew the employee’s contract of employment or to re-engage him under a new contract of employment,

(b) the provisions of the contract as renewed, or of the new contract, as to the capacity and place in which he would be employed and as to the other terms and conditions of his employment would differ wholly or in part from the corresponding provisions of his contract in force immediately before the termination of his contract,

(c) the offer constitutes an offer of suitable employment in relation to the employee,

(d) the renewal or re-engagement would take effect not later than four weeks after the date of the termination of his contract], and

(e) he has unreasonably refused the offer.

(2A) Where an employee who has been offered suitable employment and has carried out, for a period of not more than four weeks, the duties of that employment, refuses the offer, the temporary acceptance of that employment shall not solely constitute an unreasonable refusal for the purposes of this section.

Provide reasons for redress and award made.

If hearing in private due to ‘special circumstances’, please briefly note same and reasons for departure from open justice principle.

However, Legal issues aside, all cases rest on their own evidence and factual matrix. These will now be considered.

3:2       Consideration of Evidence both Oral and Written presented.

As explained at the Hearing by the Adjudication Officer and with reference to Legal Precedents the alternative employment offered has to be “Reasonable”. Moving to the UK or far outside of Dublin with a different rate of Pay was obviously unreasonable but moving from a suburban Shopping Centre to the City Centre is normally feasible unless very special reasons exist. The Respondent submitted a Google Map comparing the previous journey time and a new journey time from the Complainant’s Home Address as being a difference of some approximate 10 additional minutes.

The offer letter of the 29th July covered 5 main points of possible query with detailed responses.

The Complainant in his evidence made it clear that work with the Respondent was precarious – a move to the City Centre Branch was in his view going to offer no greater security of employment. He mentioned that the City Centre Branch closed in early 2026 with he understood, Redundancy for all employees.

He simply wanted to move on to other work and take his Redundancy. His letter of the 6th August 2025 simply stated that he had decided to move on.

3:3          Adjudication conclusion.

Section 15 of the Act, quoted above is unambiguous and is in the Respondent’s favour. The offer of work in the City Centre Branch was not unreasonable. The only issue seemed to be a slightly longer -10 minutes - journey to work.

Section 16 of the Act allows employees to “trial” the alternative work for a brief period before making a Yes/No decision on a Redundancy Offer. The Complainant did not opt for this provision.

The irony of the case was that, if he had moved to the City Centre Branch, he would have benefited from Redundancies when it closed in early 2026.

In final conclusion the Adjudication finding has to be that, as per Section 15, above the compliant fails. It is unsuccessful.

Redundancy, Offer/Acceptance of offer of Alternative Work