ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00059066

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Noelle Leahy	Felicity Elliot t/a Puddleducks Preschool

Representatives

Shonagh Byrne SIPTU

Not present

Complaint(s):

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-00071801-001	22/05/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as an Early School Educator. The business of the Respondent closed and the Complainant was made redundancy and did not receive her statutory redundancy payment. The Complainant was seeking her statutory redundancy.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed from 12/9/2011 to 21/6/2024 as an Early School Educator and earned 310 Euro per week for a 20 hour week.

The Respondent business shut down in June 2024 and the Complainant was not paid her statutory redundancy.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and location of the Hearing on November 24th 2024 and advised through a letter to the WRC on the day before the Hearing that she was caring for an elderly relative and that she would not be attending the Hearing. No postponement was sought. She also advised that she had insufficient funds at present to pay the Complainant her statutory redundancy but hoped to have the funds to do so in the very near future and wished to pay the redundancy due when she was able to do so..

Findings and Conclusions:

This is a complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, to the effect that the complainant was made redundant and did not receive a redundancy payment.

The entitlement to a redundancy payment is set out in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 which 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.”.

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2020 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. Based on the submission of the Complainant I allow the Complainants appeal and I award her statutory redundancy on the following basis Section 4.(1) of the Act states “Subject to this section and to section 47 this Act shall apply to employees employed in employment which is insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966 and to employees who were so employed in such employment in the period of two years ending on the date of termination of employment.” Therefore, subject to the Complainant being in employment which was insurable for this purpose under the Social Welfare Acts, and subject to being confirmed by the appropriate Government Agency, the Complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment of two weeks per year (or part thereof) plus a week on the following basis;

Date of Commencement; September 12th 2011

Date of Reckonable Service for Redundancy Payment Ceasing on: June 21st 2024

Gross Weekly Wage: 310 Euros

The Complainants period of “Reckonable Service” is defined by Schedule 3 of the Act and does not include any period of absence from work due to lay off by the employer.

Decision:

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 allow the Complainants appeal.

Dated: 13th of March 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Key Words:

Redundancy