Cinders Ltd (Represented by Tom Smyth & Associates) v Celina Byrne (Represented by John O'Neill)

Judgment Date08 August 2018
Judgment citation (vLex)[2018] 8 JIEC 0802
Date08 August 2018
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO. RPD1811 ADJ-00011676 CA-00015571-001
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)




ADJ-00011676 CA-00015571-001

Cinders Limited (Represented by Tom Smyth & Associates)
Celina Byrne (Represented by John O'Neill)

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Ms Treacy


Labour Court (Ireland)


1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADJ-00011676.


2. The Employer appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 18 June 2018 in accordance with the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 August 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:


This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought on behalf of Cinders Limited T/A Cinders (‘the Respondent’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00011676, dated 10 May 2018) under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (‘the Act’). The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 18 June 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 3 August 2018. The Court heard evidence from Ms Celina Byrne (‘the Complainant’) and from Ms Catherine Flood, a Director of the Respondent company.


The issue between the parties is a net one. The Respondent retails ladies' footwear via a mixture of concessions and stand-alone stores. The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a sales assistant for some twenty years, between June 1997 and October 2017. She worked for most of that period in the Respondent's shop in the Merrion Centre in Dublin 4. For a number of years prior to 2017, that outlet experienced an increasing decline in sales. The Respondent took a decision, therefore, to close it down in or around August 2017. It is common case that Ms Flood informed the Complainant on 4 September 2017 that this decision had been taken. She was also informed on that occasion that she was a valued employee and that an alternative position would be identified for her within the wider business.


Coincidentally, in or around that time the Respondent was at an advanced stage of negotiating a concession arrangement within a large retailer located in the Blanchardstown Centre. Ms Flood, therefore, offered the Complainant the option of taking up employment in that location. She invited the Complainant to visit the Blanchardstown Centre and revert. The Complainant availed herself of that opportunity following which she informed Ms Flood that she was not prepared to accept a move to Blanchardstown. The Complainant's evidence to the Court was that her travelling time to and from work would have increased. However, her principal reason for refusing that offer of alternative employment was she had been used to working in a boutique-type environment and working in a concession arrangement would have been very different, from her perspective.


Ms Flood then offered the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT