ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003661

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Joe Donnelly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

There was no appearance by the respondent. In a written submission the respondent stated that he had forwarded a cheque to the value of €500.00 in lieu of minimum notice to the complainant. The respondent had also stated that he had no objection to an investigation under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, requires that I issue a recommendation to the parties in relation to the dispute.

Issues for Decision:

Did the complainant receive the payment due to him on the termination of his employment in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991?

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

The definition of wages in the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, includes the following:

Any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being the sum paid in lieu of giving such notice.

Decision / Recommendation:

The complainant was employed as a window fitter by the respondent. He commenced employment on 5 October 2015 and his employment terminated on 26 May 2016. He was employed on a full time basis and was paid €527.36 per week gross.

The complainant stated that he had received no complaints about his work. On Monday 23 May 2016 he was told to stay at home as thee was no work for him. On the following Thursday he contacted the respondent to be told that there still was no work for him and was issued with a P45 form. There were about 14 window fitters employed by the respondent at that time and other members of staff were retained including those that had been employed after him. Since that time he ha been seeking employment but without success. In June he had received a cheque from the respondent for €500.00 but had returned it.

On a point of clarification it was accepted that there was duplication in filling out the application form of the complaint and dispute and that there was in fact one complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, and one under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Complaint No. CA-00004987-001:

This is a dispute in relation to a claim of unfair dismissal brought under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Based on the submissions and evidence before me I find that the complainant was unfairly dismissed and recommend that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of €4,000.00 as compensation.

Complaint No. CA-00004987-002:

This is a complaint in relation to the non-payment of monies in lieu of minimum notice. The complainant should have received one week’s pay as stipulated in the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. I therefore find that this complaint is well founded and require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €527.36.

Complaints Nos. CA-00004987-003/4:

These are duplicates of the above two complaints as clarified above.

Dated:   20^th December 2016