ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

---

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061596

Parties:

| **** | Complainant | Respondent |
| Parties | Ann Marie  Murray | Kieran Walsh  trading as Rockys Takeaway Ballylinan |

| Representatives | Self-represented | No attendance |

Complaint:

| 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-00075216-001 | 07/09/2025 |

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton

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 and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was held in the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Carlow. The complainant, Ms. Murray and respondent, Mr. Walsh made written submissions in advance of the hearing. Ms. Murray attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. Mr. Walsh did not attend the hearing. In accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, employment rights hearings are held in public, and decisions are not anonymised unless there are special circumstances.

In coming to a decision, I have considered the relevant oral evidence and documentation put into evidence. I have summarised the evidence having regard to the relevance to the complaint made.

Background:

| The complainant submitted a complaint that she did not receive a statutory redundancy payment when her employment ended with the respondent.

The respondent denies the claim in a written submission, although did not attend the hearing. |

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

| Summary of Ms Murray’s Evidence

Ms. Murray gave testimony that she commenced employment on 9th April 2014. She worked for 4 years with a previous family member before working under Mr. Walsh who took over the business. She confirmed that she did not receive a redundancy payment when Mr Walsh took over the business and her service continued. She said her employment ended on the owners last day of trading on 2nd August 2025. She worked four days per week (25 hours) and was paid at minimum wage. She provided evidence of her payslips at the hearing which confirmed that she worked 25 hours per week.

She said that staff were aware the building lease was due to expire. The staff knew there were ongoing discussions with a potential new owner. The complainant said she did not meet the new owner as stated by Mr. Walsh in his submission. She said that her colleagues were all family members and did not transfer to the new owner. She contested the assertion from Mr. Walsh in his submission that she left the employment to take up a health service job a month before the new owner took over. The Adjudication Officer requested her to submit evidence of the start date of her new employment. She submitted documentation which confirmed that she commenced the new employment on 11th August 2025. |

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

| Mr Walsh made a submission to the WRC in advance of the hearing although did not attend the hearing. He was granted a previous postponement of the hearing. He applied for a further postponement on 4th March 2025 although this was not granted as he did not submit evidence of a hospital appointment. I am satisfied that he was on notice of the hearing.

Although Mr. Walsh did not attend to give oral testimony, he did make a submission. He submitted that the complainant had left the employment prior to the last day of trading on 2nd August 2025. He writes in his submission ‘My accountant and my solicitor both advised me that I sold the business and Ann Marie took up a contract of employment mid-June.’ |

Findings and Conclusions:

| The Law

The Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 sets out the general right to a redundancy payment.

Section 7(1) provides:

“ 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 ”.

Section 7(5) of the Acts provides:

“ In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3). . . .”

Section 7(2) of the Acts provides:

“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 . . . .”

(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) … …

(e) … …

Finding

The fact of whether there was a redundancy is in dispute. There is no conflict that the business changed hands on 2nd August 2025. The complainant provided documentary evidence that she commenced new employment on 11th August 2025. I am satisfied with this uncontested documentary evidence that her new employment in the health service commenced on 11th August 2025. I also accept the testimony that she did not meet the new owner of the business. Mr. Walsh commented in his written submission ‘My accountant and my solicitor both advised me that I sold the business and Ann Marie took up a contract of employment mid-June.’ The complainant gave uncontested testimony and provided documentary evidence which contradicts her alleged employment start date. For the reasons outlined, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I am satisfied that the complainant was made redundant and that she is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. Mr. Walsh’s business still has a normal status according to the online company registration portal.

I allow the complainant’s appeal and find she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum from the respondent on the following criteria-

Date of commencement of employment- 9th April 2014.

Date of termination- 2nd August 2025.

Gross Weekly Wage- €369.00

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

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.

| For the reasons outlined, I allow the complainant’s appeal and find she is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum from the respondent on the following criteria-

Date of commencement of employment- 9th April 2014.

Date of termination- 2nd August 2025.

Gross Weekly Wage- €369.00

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

Dated: 16th March 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seamus Clinton

Key Words:

| Redundancy |