Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nataliya  Harnyk

Frog Prince Limited

Representatives

Vadim Karpenko

 Self - Represented

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-00074120-001

06/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11A of the Protection of Employment Act 1977

CA-00074120-002

06/08/2025

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

CA-00074120-003

06/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00074120-004

06/08/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00074120-005

06/08/2025

At the commencement of the hearing, the Complainant withdrew her claims relating to Minimum Notice CA-00074120-003 and her claims under the Organisation of Working Time Act, CA-00074120-004 and CA-00074120-005 respectively. 

The Complainant states that she commenced employment with the Respondent as a floral assistant on 14 March 2022 and worked on a part-time basis. The Complainant states that during her employment, she typically worked approximately two days per week. Each shift was 8 hours and her hourly rate of pay was €16 per hour.

The Complainant states that she was on illness-related leave from 24 April 2024 until 24 February 2025. On 24 February 2025, she attended at the workplace to return to work and was informed verbally that she must provide a doctor’s note confirming that she was fit to return to work.  The Complainant states that she provided the doctor’s note at the office later that day.  The Complainant states that she requested on a number of occasions when she would be rostered to return to work. After approximately three weeks, she states that she received a message to the effect that the company did not have work for her.

The Complainant states that following a series of text messages, she received a letter stating that she was being placed on lay-off. The Complainant states that she understood this to mean that her work had ceased because the Respondent said it had no work available and that this was said to be temporary. The Complainant states that in or around April 2025, she received a letter inviting her to a meeting about redundancy, scheduled for 10 April 2025. She states that she attended the redundancy meeting and a number of other employees were also being made redundant at this juncture.

The Complainant states that although she received general information that redundancies were proposed, she did not receive clear written information explaining the selection criteria applied to decide who would be made redundant, the “pool” of employees considered for selection and any alternatives considered. She further asserts that she did not receive a clear written explanation of her rights and the consequences of redundancy.

The Complainant states that during this period she noted that the Respondent was continuing to promote its business on social media and this made her question whether the Respondent’s requirements for employees to carry out work of her kind had ceased or diminished in the way required for a genuine redundancy.

The Complainant states that she is concerned that she was unfairly selected for redundancy. The Complainant states that she did not receive a written statutory calculation of her redundancy lump sum and is of the view that that amount she received was incorrect.

The Respondent states that the Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 22 March 2022 in the position of floral assistant working variable hours on an hourly basis. The Respondent states that during 2024 and early 2025, the company undertook a review of its financial position due to ongoing financial issues, reduced trading levels and the seasonal nature of the business.

Redundancy Payments Act - 001

The Respondent states that on 27 March 2025, the company issued correspondence to staff, including the Complainant confirming lay-off and short-time working measures due to reduced business activity. The Respondent states that on 9 April 2025, the company commenced a formal redundancy consultation process and on 14 April issued the Complainant with a written notification confirming that her role was at risk of redundancy.

The Respondent states that it invited the Complainant to participate in consultation meetings and offered multiple opportunities to engage, including in-person, telephone and online meetings. Following consultation and financial review, the Respondent states that it made the decision to remove the floral role as it was no longer financially sustainable. The Respondent states that the Complainant’s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy following this restructuring. The Respondent states that it calculated the Complainant’s statutory redundancy entitlement in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts.       

Protection of Employment Act 1977 - 002

The Respondent states that it undertook a restructuring process affecting the in-house floral function due to financial pressures and reduced operational requirements. It states that the restructuring resulted in a small number of redundancies within a small business employing significantly fewer than twenty employees at the relevant time.

The Respondent states that it issued individual written correspondence to each of the employees impacted, including the Complainant confirming that their roles were at risk of redundancy. The Respondent states that the Company conducted individual consultation and provided employees with opportunities to engage, provide feedback, explore alternatives and they were offered the opportunity to be represented.

The Respondent submits that the number of employees affected did not meet the statutory threshold required to trigger collective redundancy obligations under the Protection of Employment Act, 1977. The Respondent states that this claim is misconceived.   

I have carefully reviewed all of the evidence heard in the within matter. I note from the written submissions that the Respondent was undergoing significant financial pressure following a reduction of circa 60% in its business.  I note that a major restructuring took place and the department with the most losses and the least work was the floral division. The Respondent submits that there were 6 staff members in this section in 2024 and all 6 staff were made redundant in April 2025. I note based on the evidence submitted that the business went from 30 staff in 2020, 15 staff in 2023 down to 2.5 staff in 2026.

CA-00074120-001 - Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 provides that;

"7. General right to redundancy payment

 (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....

Section 1, subsection (5) defines "requisite period" as; "5) In this section "requisite period" means a period of [104] weeks' continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) of the employee by the employer who dismissed him, laid him off or kept him on short time, but excluding any period of employment with that employer before the employee had attained the age of 16 years"

Schedule 3 goes on to provide inter alia the definition of "continuous service" as being.

Where an employee’s period of service is interrupted by any one of the following: (a) any period by reason of - (i) sickness (ii) lay- off (iii) holidays (iv) service by the employee in the Reserve Defence Forces of the State (v) any cause (other than the voluntary leaving of the employment concerned by the employee) not mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) but

Section 11 of the Act particularises that;

"where an employee's employment ceases by reason of his employer being unable to provide work for which the employee was employed to do and (a) it is reasonable in the circumstances for the employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent; and (b) the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation, the cessation will be regarded as lay-off" authorised by the employer,... continuity of employment shall not be broken by such interruption whether or not notice of termination of the contract of employment has been given."

Schedule 3, Paragraph 7 –12 of the Act states as follows:

7. For the purposes of this Schedule, a week falling within a period of continuous employment and during which (or during any part of which) the employee concerned either was actually at work, or was absent therefrom by reason of sickness, holidays or any other arrangement with his employer shall, subject to paragraph 8, be allowable as reckonable service. I

8. During, and only during, the 3 year period ending with the date of termination of employment, none of the following absences shall be allowable as reckonable service— (a) absence in excess of 52 consecutive weeks by reason of an occupational accident or disease within the meaning of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, (b) absence in excess of 26 consecutive weeks by reason of any illness not referred to in subparagraph (a), (c) absence by reason of lay-off by the employer.

Based on the evidence heard, I find that the Complainant’ s employment was terminated by reason of redundancy. I find 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: 14 March 2022

Date of Notice of Termination: 15 July 2025

Gross Weekly Wage: €256

In relation to the calculation of the redundancy lump sum payment, the Complainant’s absence on sick leave in excess of 26 consecutive weeks together with the lay-off period does not constitute  ‘reckonable service’ in the context of the redundancy payment calculation.

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

CA-00074120-002 - Protection of Employment Act 1977

I find that the Complainant’s claim under this Act is misconceived.

CA-00074120-001 - Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

I find 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: 14 March 2022

Date of Notice of Termination: 15 July 2025

Gross Weekly Wage: €256

The Complainant’s absence on sick leave in excess of 26 consecutive weeks together with the lay-off period does not constitute ‘reckonable service’ in the context of the redundancy payment calculation.

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

CA-00074120-002 - Protection of Employment Act 1977

I find that the Complainant’s claim under this Act is not well-founded.

Redundancy Payments Act