Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fiona  Tuohy

Barvest Limited trading as  City Bar

Representatives

Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00071397-001

07/05/2025

The Complainant was employed  by the Respondent as a bartender from 2 September 2022 until 28 November 2024. She earned €196 per week gross. The Respondent’s business ceased trading and the Complainant did not receive her statutory redundancy payment.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 2 September 2022 as a bartender. On 26 November 2024, she, along with her colleagues, received a WhatsApp message informing them that the Respondent was closing. Her employment terminated on 28 November 2024.

The Complainant sought payment of her statutory redundancy payment; however, she was informed by the Respondent’s Director and its accountant that the Respondent was insolvent and did not have the funds to discharge this liability. The Complainant confirmed that her statutory redundancy payment remained outstanding as at the date of the hearing.

The Complainant’s gross weekly earnings were €196.00.

The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of this complaint. Having reviewed the file, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the claim against it and the hearing date, time and login arrangements. I waited a reasonable time before proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Respondent.

The Complainant provided evidence of her redundancy, entitlement and evidence in support of her contention that the statutory redundancy payment was never paid to her.

She gave evidence that on 26 November 2024 she, along with her colleagues, received a WhatsApp message informing them that the Respondent was closing. The Respondent subsequently ceased trading. Her employment terminated on 28 November 2024.

This complaint is for a statutory lump sum payment under section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 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 regard to the uncontroverted evidence before me, I am satisfied that the Respondent ceased trading and that the Complainant’s dismissal arose wholly or mainly by reason of redundancy within the meaning of section 7(2) of the 1967 Act. I am further satisfied that the Complainant meets the qualifying conditions for a statutory redundancy payment and that no such payment has been made to her.

The calculation of gross weekly pay is subject to a ceiling of €600.00. The precise calculation of the lump sum is a matter for the appropriate authority.

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 her employer to pay a redundancy payment.  I decide that the within complaint is well founded and I decide that 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: 2 September 2022

Date of Notice of Termination: 26 November 2024

Date Employment Ended: 28 November 2024

The Complainant’s gross weekly wage at the date of her redundancy was €196.00.

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