Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Audrey Hendrick

Clonsilla Blinds Limited

Representatives

Represented Herself 

 Ruaidhri Giblin BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073306-001

10/07/2025

In March 2012, the complainant started working as a sales assistant in the respondent’s blinds shop in Cannon Row in Navan.  She worked four and a half days a week; however, when she returned from maternity leave in January 2013, she reduced her hours to three days a week.  In 2016, she moved to a new unit in Navan, in Beechmount Home Park.  In 2024, her hourly rate of pay was €14.00.  Payslips that the complainant sent to the WRC after the hearing show that, in most weeks, she worked for 21 hours, earning €294.00 gross per week. 

Although named Clonsilla Blinds, the respondent runs her business from a unit in Stadium Business Park in Ballycoolin, Dublin 15.  Manufacturing, sales and distribution are done in this unit, which, to add to the confusion, is referred to by the parties as the Coolmine shop.

The complainant was out sick from work from August 29th 2024 and she was still absent in December that year when the owner closed the shop in Navan.  In February 2025, when the complainant was able to go back to work, the owner asked her to move to the shop in Coolmine.  The complainant lives close to her former place of work in Navan and, because of the distance to Coolmine, she did not agree to move.  She claims that her job is redundant and that she is entitled to a redundancy lump sum.

From the documents submitted by the respondent after the hearing, it appears that the shop where the complainant worked in Navan was closed for the month of January 2024 and she was laid off.

At the hearing, the complainant said that the first indication she got that the shop was closing permanently was in February 2024.  She said that she was offered a redundancy payment of €4,500 which was less than her statutory entitlement.  She said that she got advice from the WRC and she told the owner that she wouldn’t accept less than what she was entitled to.  The shop in Navan then remained open.

The complainant said that she had responsibility for rostering the staff in Navan and she rostered herself so that she could manage her childcare.  In July 2024, she said that the owner took over the roster, with no accommodation for her childcare needs. 

In the documents she submitted at the hearing, the complainant produced a letter dated July 24th 2024, in which the owner confirmed that she had to close the shop in Navan due to the downturn in business.  The complainant said that she didn’t get this letter until August 6th, but she acknowledged that she had a telephone conversation with the owner around July 19th.  The owner asked the complainant to supervise the removal of fittings and products from the shop and she told her that there was a job for her in Coolmine.  The complainant lives in Navan and she doesn’t drive.  The distance from Navan to the shop in Coolmine is 45km and she told the owner that she couldn’t move.  The complainant wrote to the owner on July 25th and re-stated her position regarding the move.  She said that, after she got a bus from her home to Blanchardstown, she would have to walk for 35 minutes, which was difficult due to problems with her back, which, she claimed, were caused by two work-related accidents.

On July 27th, the owner wrote to the complainant and told her that her transfer from Navan to Coolmine would happen between August 18th and 23rd.  In an undated letter, the complainant replied and acknowledged the letter she received on August 6th, which was dated July 24th.  The complainant told the respondent that she had been advised that, since the shop in Navan was closing, her job no longer exists and that she is entitled to a redundancy lump sum.  She said that she was notifying the owner of her grievance in relation to the failure to treat her job as redundant.

The complainant was on sick leave from August 29th 2024.  She was fit to return on February 6th 2025 and, on that date, the owner wrote to her and told her that the shop in Navan was closed.  She offered her alternative employment in Coolmine, working less hours to accommodate her travel time, but on the same wages.  The complainant replied on February 10th 2025, in which she repeated her position regarding the move to Coolmine, again invoking the grievance procedure to deal with the matter.  She got no reply and she got no reply when she wrote again on March 7th.  On March 19th, she wrote to the owner again, repeating her position that it was not possible for her to work in Coolmine.  On March 28th, the owner wrote to the complainant.  She said that she had been trying to engage with her for seven months and she asked her to respond within seven days regarding the move to Coolmine, failing which she said that she would “consider your conduct to be such that you have left your employment.”  In the final line of this letter, the owner stated,

“Please note that your employment commenced on 21st May 2021 and that you have been absent for a total of 35 weeks.”

The complainant said that the owner’s position is that her employment commenced in May 2021, when she went back to work after the second Covid-19 lock-down.  On foot of this letter, the complainant consulted Maguire McClafferty Solicitors, who, on April 4th, wrote to the owner.  The solicitors stated that the complainant commenced employment with the respondent on March 26th 2012 and, arising from the closure of the shop in Navan in December 2024, her job was redundant.

On April 7th 2025, the owner wrote directly to the complainant, repeating most of the contents of her letter of March 28th.  On April 22nd, the respondent’s solicitor, Mr Kelly, wrote to the complainant’s solicitors, and offered her a payment of €2,400 which, he said, based on a commencement date of May 21st 2021, “is a generous offer and more than her statutory entitlement.”

On behalf of the complainant, Maguire McClafferty Solicitors replied on May 19th 2025.  They described the reference to a start date of May 21st 2021 as “bizarre.”  They reiterated the complainant’s position that her job was redundant and called upon the respondent to acknowledge this and to pay her her statutory redundancy entitlement.  The complainant did not receive a redundancy payment and, on July 10th 2025, she submitted this complaint to the WRC.

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant’s job was not redundant.  Due to the necessary closure of the shop in Navan, the complainant was asked to move to Coolmine, where she would be doing the same job for the same wages.  At the hearing, the owner explained how she proposed that the complainant could continue in employment in Coolmine.  She investigated the bus timetable from Navan and she found that it would take 30 minutes to get to Blanchardstown, with just two stops in between.  She said that the cost of the bus for three days was €12.00 and that she would pay this for the complainant.  She said that she could arrange for a van driver to collect the complainant from the bus in the morning and to drop her back to the bus stop in the evening.  She changed her start and finish times to accommodate her, with no reduction in her wages.

The second issue in dispute between the parties is the complainant’s start date.  During the Covid-19 pandemic, the owner said that her business changed from making blinds to making personal protective equipment for the HSE.  She said that the business was considered an essential service during the pandemic and the staff worked day and night to fulfil orders. 

In January 2021, the owner said that her staff were working flat out in Ballycoolin and she asked the complainant to come into the shop in Navan to take phone calls and to deal with customers by asking them to leave their names and requirements in a notebook.  She said that she had a meeting in the shop with the complainant to discuss the opening arrangements.  She said that the complainant was abusive and told her that she would report her for opening the shop.

On January 11th 2021, the owner said that she took the complainant “off the books.”  In May that year, the complainant asked to come back to work and the owner said that she asked her for a letter of apology, which she didn’t get.  In any event, the complainant returned to work although the owner said that she had “caused me a big problem in the shop.”  It is the owner’s position that the complainant left her job on January 11th 2021 and that her start date is May 21st 2021.

In her evidence, the owner said that there were occasions when the complainant had come to the shop in Coolmine in the past on Saturdays and on other days to help out.  She said that couldn’t understand why the move wasn’t acceptable.

In February 2024, the owner said that she offered the complainant a payment of €4,500 because she was planning then to close the shop in Navan.  She said that the complainant could have moved to Coolmine at that stage.  She said that she didn’t want to lose her from the business.  When the complainant said that she wouldn’t accept the payment, the owner said that she tried to keep the shop open for a bit longer.  Shortly after she was offered the job in Coolmine in February 2024, the complainant said that she fell off a ladder in the shop in Navan when she was putting up a blind.  The owner said that she told the complainant that she shouldn’t be climbing ladders and that this work is the responsibility of the showroom staff.  This fall resulted in a personal injuries claim in July 2024.

On behalf of the respondent, Mr Giblin said that their position is that the complainant left her job in July 2024 when she refused to transfer to Coolmine.  In a letter to me after the hearing, on February 24th 2025, the respondent’s solicitor, Mr Kelly repeated their position that the complainant left her job when she refused the opportunity to move to Coolmine.  Based on this assertion, Mr Kelly argued that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1969 has been submitted outside the statutory time limit for submitting complaints to the WRC.

At the hearing of this complaint, it was apparent that relations between the complainant and her former employer were fractious and that there was serious disagreement on both sides.  I understand the position of the respondent who had to close her shop in Navan where she had been in business for many years, but which was losing money.  She had a business to maintain in Coolmine, and the complainant, an experienced worker, could be a valuable asset there.  The evidence given by both women was heated and at times emotional.  My job is to consider the complainant’s case that her job was redundant, and that the move to Coolmine was such a significant change to her terms and conditions, that it was unreasonable to expect her to transfer.  In this regard, I must leave aside the history of the relationships and apply the law and any legal precedents that might assist me with my conclusion. 

The Relevant Law

Section 24 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (“the Act”) provides that an employee will not be entitled to a redundancy lump sum if a complaint is not submitted to the WRC within 52 weeks of the date on which their employment was terminated.  The complainant was absent due to illness from August 30th 2024 and the place where she worked closed sometime in December 2024.  While she was not at work, she remained in the employment of the respondent until the closure of the shop in December 2024.  As she submitted this complaint to the WRC on July 10th 2025, her complaint has been submitted within the 52-week time limit. 

Section 7(2) of the Act set out the circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment:

…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…

Sub-sections (c), (d) and (e) are not relevant to this complainant’s case.

The Characteristics of Redundancy

In a decision of the former Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), St Ledger v Frontline Distributors Ireland Limited, UD 56/1994, the chairman, Mr Dermot McCarthy remarked that redundancy “has two important characteristics, namely, impersonality and change.”  In 2003, the view of the Tribunal in this and other cases led to the amendment of section 7(2) of the Act and the insertion of the statement underlined above which emphasises that redundancy is impersonal, and “not related to the employee.”  The fact that the complainant’s employer ceased to carry on the business in the place where she was employed was in no way related to her, but was an impersonal change in the business.  The provisions of sub-section (a) and (b) of section 7(2) of the Act include the cessation of a business in a particular place, or the change in the number of people required to work in a particular place and the transfer of the business to a new location.  It is my view therefore, that the relocation of the employer’s business means that, for this employee, her job was redundant.

The question that arises is, was it reasonable for the respondent to expect this employee to change her place of work from Navan, a distance of 5.5 kilometres from her home, to Ballycoolin, a distance of 40 kilometres? 

Disentitlement to Redundancy

Section 15 of the Act sets out the circumstances in which an employee will not be entitled to a redundancy payment.  This section generally applies where an employer has issued notice of redundancy and then finds that the employee may be retained.  While, in the case under consideration, no notice of redundancy was issued, it is still necessary to consider the circumstances in which a redundancy payment will not be due: 

(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.

In the case of Louise Earley v Floorstyle Contracts Limited, RP382/2003, the claimant worked in Skerries and her employer moved to new premises in Swords.  Where she had walked for 10 minutes to work, the move to Swords meant that Ms Earley had to take two buses.  In his determination, the chairman of the Tribunal who was again, Mr McCarthy, found that section 15(1) did not apply to Ms Earley, because the offer meant that she would have to work at a different place.  As the circumstances of the complainant in this case are similar to those of Ms Earley, I find that section 15(1) does not apply to the complainant here.

Section 15(2) addresses the situation where there is a change in the job, or in the job location, and the suitability of the offer to the employee:

(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.

Considering the suitability of the offer in Early v Floorstyle, Mr McCarthy stated:

“Given the amount of travel involved by contrast with the short walk in Skerries, we would find it unsuitable.  For these two reasons, we find that the claimant is not disentitled under Section 15.”

In our case here, the complainant said that she doesn’t drive.  The distance from her home to Beechmount in Navan is 5.5 km and the information available from the website of Transport for Ireland indicates that there is a bus service comprising two buses which takes about 40 minutes to complete the journey.  In her letter to the owner in August 2024, the complainant said that she consulted Google Maps and it would take her a total of one hour and 16 minutes to travel to Coolmine, including a walk of 33 minutes from the bus stop to the shop.  I acknowledge that the owner gave the complainant an undertaking to arrange to have her collected from the bus stop.  I acknowledge also that, for some employees, the change from Navan to Coolmine might be acceptable.  Much depends on the nature and status of the job, the circumstances of the employee and the wages being paid.  It is my view that, for the complainant, the distance of 40 km to the new premises, compared to the original distance of 5.5 km, makes the offer of the transfer to Coolmine unsuitable, and, on this basis, I am satisfied that she is not disentitled to a redundancy payment.

The Subjective Test

The circumstances of the claimant in the EAT case of Deirdre Heavey v Casey Doors Limited, RP1040/2013 are similar to this complainant’s circumstances.  Ms Heavey lived in Baldoyle and her employer moved from Baldoyle to Balbriggan, a distance of 28.6 km.  Instead of a 10 minute walk to work, Ms Heavey would have to leave her home much earlier and take two buses.  Ms Heavey’s employer refused her application for redundancy.  Finding that her job had become redundant, the chairman determined that,

“The legal test to be applied is a subjective one.  It is not what the employer found reasonable.”

In a Labour Court case heard in August 2018, Cinders Limited and Celina Byrne, RPD1811, the Chairman, Mr Haugh found against the complainant when, on the closure of the shoe shop she worked in at the Merrion Centre in Dublin 4, she refused an offer of a similar job in Wicklow Street.  Ms Byrne told the Court that moving to Wicklow Street would not have caused any issues for her travelling to and from work.  In his determination in this case, Mr Haugh referred to the British case of Cambridge & District Co-operative Society Ltd v Ruse [1993] IRLR 156 where the Tribunal found that,

“…the suitability of the employment is an objective matter, whereas the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal depends on factors personal to him and is a subjective matter to be considered from the employee’s point of view.”

In the Cinders case, the ease of the commute to and from work was a factor in the Court’s conclusion that the claimant’s refusal to re-locate was unreasonable.  I find that, in the case under consideration, the complainant has met the requirements of the subjective test.  The distance of 40 km to her alternative place of employment, compared to the 5.5 km that she had to travel previously, presents her with a considerable difficulty, not only from the perspective of the commute, but due to the reality of being 40 km from her home and her young son.  In these circumstances, I am satisfied that she has met the subjective legal test that the requirement to move to Coolmine is unreasonable and that her job is redundant.

The Complainant’s Start Date

Following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the complainant did not attend work between March and July 2020 and from January until May 2021.  Although work was available for her between January and May 2021, she decided not to work and she received the pandemic unemployment payment for both periods of lay-off.  Although her Revenue account shows that her employment was terminated, this is a record of the dates on which she received wages and when there was a cessation in the payment of wages and it is not a determination of her dismissal.  Although she said that she took the complainant “off the books,” the respondent produced no evidence to show that the complainant was dismissed in January 2021.  I am satisfied that the complainant was not dismissed and that her employment is continuous from March 26th 2012 until the shop in Navan closed in December 2024.

Conclusion

I have considered the arguments of the complainant and the respondent on this matter.  I am guided by the authorities of the EAT and the Labour Court that I have referred to here and I find that, due to the change in the commuting distance arising from the closure of the respondent’s business in Navan, the complainant’s job was redundant and she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment.

Section 7 of the above Act sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is:

(a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose 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[.]

As the complainant’s employer has ceased operations in the place where she was employed, her job has become redundant.  Subject to her PRSI contribution status, I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment, based on her service from March 26th 2012 until the closure of the shop in Navan in December 2024.  The continuity of the complainant’s service is to be determined by the respondent in accordance with the First Schedule of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.

Redundancy, change of location