FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : THE MING GARDEN (REPRESENTED BY KEANE SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Alleged Unfair Dismissal and other issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his employer in relation to alleged unfair dismissal and the workers assertions that he was not provided with payslips while employed. The worker also claims that he was not provided with a P45 when his employment terminated.
The employer's position is that the worker left his employment of his own accord to return to Poland. The employer further contends that the worker did not submit his PPS number or return the appropriate form (12A) to the employer so it was not possible for him to be registered for PRSI deductions.
The worker referred his complaint to the Labour Court on 14th April, 2009 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th June, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker was dismissed unfairly when he raised the issue that he had not been registered as an employee for PRSI purposes.
2 The worker did not receive payslips while he was employed by the Company which is a clear breach of legislation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker was not dismissed. He left his employment of his own accord as he said he was returning home to Poland.
2 There were delays with registering the employee for PRSI purposes as a result of the worker not submitting the appropriate registration form or his PPS number to the employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court, brought under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 concerns the Claimant’s claims that he did not receive payslips while he was employed with the Company, he was not furnished with a copy of his P45 and that he was unfairly dismissed when he made enquiries regarding his registration for PRSI deductions purposes.
There was a dispute before the Court concerning his dates of employment, the claimant asserted that he had been employed between 25th August and 15th November 2008, whereas the Company stated that he was employed from 18th October to 15th November 2008 and produced roster records to substantiate its assertion.
The Company stated that it had encountered difficulties in registering the Claimant for PRSI purposes as he had failed to complete Form P12A, which had been given to him at the commencement of his employment and he had not supplied details of his PPS number. It stated that for those reasons it had not been possible to supply him with payslips and in the circumstances it had not been able to comply with PAYE/PRSI requirements until after 28th November 2008 when he called to his employer seeking a reference at which point he supplied details of his PPS number.
It was not disputed that the Claimant had been given Form P12A at the commencement of his employment. However, the Claimant said that he did not understand that he had to complete the Form. He accepted that he did not supply details of his PPS number until 28th November 2008, i.e. after his employment had terminated.
The Company denied dismissing the Claimant and submitted that on 15th November 2008 he had informed his Manager that he was leaving as he was returning home to Poland.
The Company submitted that an error had occurred when it included the dates of his employment on the reference supplied to him, as it had inadvertently included the starting date for his brother instead.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, in relation to the claims before the Court, the Court sees little relevance to this error, as there was no dispute that he had employed by the Company for a period of time in any event. The Court can find no grounds to substantiate his claim of unfair dismissal and consequently that claim falls.
The Court is satisfied that in the absence of relevant details to register him for PAYE/PRSI purposes at the time the Company was not capable of complying with such requirements until such time as he supplied the details. The Court notes that by the time the P35L’s were finalised in respect of the year 2008 the matter had been rectified and all monies due were paid. A copy of his P60 dated 31st December 2008 was supplied to the Court, which indicated that PRSI contributions had been paid in respect of 2008.
For all the foregoing reasons the Court does not uphold the Claimant’s claims before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th July 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.