FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997 PARTIES : THE GOODE LIFE FOOD COMPANY - AND - MR DARIUS ZAKAS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Decision No: r-134530-wt-13/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioners Decision No: r-134530-wt-13/MMG. The issue concerns a former employee of the Respondent Company and his claims that he was not paid the appropriate cessor payments on the termination of his employment. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Decision issued on the 20th November 2013 and found that although the worker had eventually been paid all monies due to him, there had been a delay in him receiving his entitlements. The Rights Commissioner awarded the worker €300 in compensation.
On the 17th December 2013, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Decision in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th February 2013.
The Claimant was notified of the time and date of the hearing but did not attend and was not represented. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by the Good Food Company (the Respondent) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim by Darius Zakas (the Claimant) under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
The Claimant was notified of the time, date and place at which the appeal would be heard but he failed to attend.
The claim relates to the failure of the Respondent to pay the Claimant cessor pay due to him in time. It appears that the money due was paid some four months after it became due. The Rights Commissioner awarded the Claimant compensation in the amount of €300.
The Respondent told the Court that their accountant had been instructed to pay the Claimant the amount due but had failed to do so. The Court is satisfied that the Claimant must have suffered some inconvenience at the late payment. However he did not appear so as to present any argument as to why the decision of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld.
Nevertheless, the Act was contravened and that cannot be entirely overlooked by the Court. However, in all the circumstances of this case the Court believes that the amount of the award should be reduced to one of €100.
The decision of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th March 2014______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.