FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991 PARTIES : KEEGAN PRECAST LTD (REPRESENTED BY MS DO�REANN N� MHUIRCHEARTAIGH B.L., INSTRUCTED BY MALONE & MARTIN SOLICITORS) - AND - JURIJ BONDARENKO (REPRESENTED BY RICHARD GROGAN & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Decision no r-151240-pw-14/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Decision no: r-151240-pw-14/EH made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on 11th April 2015 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is an appeal by Keegan Precast Limited against the Decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim by Mr Jurij Bondarenko under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (‘the 1991Act’). In this Determination Jurij Bondarenko is referred to as the Claimant and Keegan Precast Limited is referred to as the Respondent.
This appeal was conjoined with a number of other appeals involving the same parties under:
- •the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which appeal was withdrawn before hearing by the Respondent;
•the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 in which the Court issued Determination UDD168;
•the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 in which the Court issued Determination TED1612;
•the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in which the Court issued Recommendation LCR21218.
The claim relates to the Respondent’s failure to pay the Claimant his statutory minimum notice entitlement on the termination of his employment. The Respondent conceded to the Court that no payment was made to the Claimant by way of notice or in lieu of notice when his employment with the Respondent terminated. The Respondent further conceded that the outcome of the within appeal fell to be determined in accordance with the Court’s decision in the Respondent’s appeal under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the Act of 1977’).
The Court, having determined the Respondent’s appeal under the Act of 1977 in favour of the Claimant, and having found that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed, likewise determines the within appeal in favour of the Claimant. The Court finds that the Claimant was summarily dismissed and the Respondent’s failure to pay the Claimant in lieu of his statutory notice entitlement was an unlawful deduction from the Claimant’s wages within the meaning of section 5 of the 1991 Act.
In all the circumstances the within appeal is dismissed and the Decision of the Rights Commissioner stands.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
3rd May, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.