PWD1632

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PW/16/30

DETERMINATIONNO.PWD1632

r-150601-pw-14/MMG

SECTION 7(1), PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991

PARTIES :

BRINKS IRELAND LTD

- AND -

JANOS SZARAZ
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). r-150601-pw-14/MMG

BACKGROUND:

2. This is an appeal of an Adjudication Officer’s Decision no r-150601-pw-14/MMG made pursuant to Section 7(1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The appeal was heard by the Labour Court on the 8th September, 2016 in accordance with Section 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

This is an appeal brought by Mr Szaraz (hereafter “the Complainant”) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer dated 22 February 2016. The Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s complaint of unfair dismissal brought pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (hereafter “the 1977 Act”) was not well founded. The Complainant’s complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (hereafter the 1991 Act) arising from the failure of his former employer, Brinks (hereafter “the Respondent”, to pay him in respect of his contractual notice period was also deemed not well founded. The Notice of Appeal in respect of both matters was received by the Court on 31 March 2016. The Court convened a hearing to consider the appeal under both Acts on 8 September 2016. The Complainant was represented by SIPTU and the Respondent was represented by IBEC at the hearing.

The Complainant’s Employment History

The Complainant has worked as a security guard since 2006 at various locations in Dublin but has been primarily based at Heuston Station. He was originally employed by STT. On 27 May 2013 his employment transferred to the Respondent by operation of the EC (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003. As of the date of his dismissal, the Complainant was in receipt of a gross wage of €984.80 which was paid fortnightly.

Discussion and Determination

The Court, in Determination number UDD1627 found that the Claimant's dismissal was unfair.

It follows from the foregoing determination of the Court under the 1977 Act that the Complainant’s case under the 1991 Act should also succeed. The Complainant accrued approximately 8.5 years’ service between 14 December 2006 and 24 June 2014. His contract of employment provides for the following notice entitlement:

“The Company may terminate this contract of employment by giving you one month’s prior written notice, or otherwise in accordance with statute.”

Having regard, therefore, to the Complainant’s deemed level of service with the Respondent, the Court determines that he is entitled to compensation of €1,970.00 under the 1991 Act.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Alan Haugh
4th October, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.