ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005223
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Kitchen Porter | Restaurant owner |
Representatives |
| Did not attend |
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00007207-001 | 27/09/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00007207-003 | 27/09/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007207-004 | 27/09/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00007207-005 | 27/09/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Location of Hearing: Ashdown Park Hotel
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 - 2012, and/or Part VII of the Pensions Acts 1990 - 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 - 2015] 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).
Background:
The Claimant is seeking remedy under multiple Acts. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant outlined the number of hours he worked over a six day week including his days off. He claimed that these were excessive. He did not receive proper breaks. As a result of these hours his wages were below the minimum wage. He never received written terms of employment and his role in the kitchen kept changing. The claim under EC Regulation 18 2012 was withdrawn. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was an unexplained absence of the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
A there was an unexplained absence of the Respondent I accept the uncontested evidence of the Claimant. I find the claims well founded and make the following awards; Under CA-7207-001 I award €500.00 for not receiving a written contract. Under CA-7207-004 I award €2,000.00 for excessive hours and lack of proper breaks. Under CA-7207-003 I award €2,000.00 for being paid less than the minimum hourly rate required by the National Minimum Wage Act. I award a total of €4,500.00 |
Dated: 24th April 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney
Key Words:
|