Hurley v Creative Furniture Portlaoise Ltd



CASE NO. RP16/2015

Aisling Hurley
Creative Furniture Portlaoise Limited

The appellant gave evidence of receiving notice of redundancy (regret of closure of the business) on 7th November 2014 with a termination date of 5th December 2014. On her last day of work she received a phone call from the employer asking if she could come in for an extra few days, maybe up to 19th December. He told her that he needed to know immediately and the appellant (who had already made other arrangements) agreed to do so after a telephone conversation with her husband. She sent an e-mail to managing director on 10th December seeking her redundancy payment and seeking new written contractual arrangements for future work. He replied that he was in the UK, would ask his accountant for advice and would revert to her in due course. She then received a roster for the month of December and was later told by a work colleague that she may be needed in January 2015.


The appellant sought advice, sent the respondent an RP77 and requested her redundancy and her P45. The respondent told her she was not being made redundant and that work would still continue, her job was still there. The appellant told the Tribunal that the notice letter of 7th November was never withdrawn.


The managing director told the Tribunal that the business was making a loss and he had to make a decision on what to do. It was a difficult time and he was in discussions with lease holder and franchiser but had to advise the staff of a possible redundancy and closure. He issued notice of termination of employment by reason of redundancy on 7th November to two employees but continued to fight to save the business. At the last minute the franchiser gave him 6 months for free and he hoped to keep the business going for everyone's sake. He spoke to his accountant, a new roster was drawn up for January but the appellant did not attend for work. He did not withdrawn the original letter giving notice or provide a new contract to the appellant but said he didn't have funds for legal advice and if that's what he is guilty of "so be it".


Having considered the evidence adduced the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was dismissed by way of redundancy. In making this determination the Tribunal considered the relevant Acts and in...

To continue reading