Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Tarossa Frehill Ltd v Mary O’Reilly [2020]
Tarossa Frehill Ltd v Mary O’Reilly [2020]
Published on: 09/09/2020
Issues Covered: Redundancy
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

This is an appeal brought by the Employer of a decision by the Adjudication Officer under the terms of the Redundancy Payments Acts. The Complainant brought a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission for payment of statutory redundancy in October 2018. The Adjudication Officer upheld the claim and decided that the Complainant was entitled to statutory redundancy of €7,648.

In the appeal, The Respondent argued that the Complainant was made aware of the store’s financial difficulties and was assured that all remaining staff would retain their positions. She was told by the Respondent that she would be re-instated as soon as the new owner had signed the lease contract. In July 2018, the Complainant advised the Respondent that she could not continue to work for him for personal reasons. The Respondent informed the Court that the Complainant’s contract made provision for lay-off. While it is acknowledged that no written notice of a lay-off was provided, verbal notification was given. The Respondent argued that the Complainant was not entitled to a redundancy payment because she was offered a job by the new owner.

The Complainant contended that she never received any notice whatsoever in respect of any purported lay-off period and the Respondent failed to produce any evidence of same. There was no notice given to the Complainant of a transfer of undertakings and the purported transfer took place approximately 8 months following the termination of the Complainant’s contract.

The Court noted that there was not an immediate transfer of undertakings. As a consequence, the Complainant ceased to be employed. From that time until the business re-opened in July 2018, there were only two possibilities as to the status of the Complainant. Either she was laid off or her role had been made redundant. In the absence of any proof that the required notice of lay-off had been given to her, the Court concluded that the Complainant’s role had been made redundant, within the meaning of the Redundancy Payments Acts.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/august/rpd203.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 09/09/2020