ADJ-00006089

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION 

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00006089

Complaints for Resolution:  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure: 

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

Attendance at Hearing: 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation: 

The complainant was employed by the respondent for a short period of just ten weeks and two days (two weeks of which were annual leave).

She was involved in a disagreement with the respondent over the length of time it was taking to perform a task while she was working at home. Following this she resigned her position offering one month’s notice period.

CA-00008405-001.

She says that despite asking for it she did not receive a statement of her Terms of Employment.

CA-00008405-002.

She says she is owed outstanding wages and the disputed amount appears to be €100.

CA-00008405-003

The respondent accepted her notice as having immediate effect and she is now claiming payment in lieu of the notice period claimed which was one month.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The respondent says that the complainant was offered a contract but declined to sign it.

He agreed that a net amount of €100 was due to the complainant which he was happy to pay.

Finally, the complainant has no basis for claiming one month’s payment in lieu of notice as she had neither a statutory entitlement based on service nor a contractual entitlement to do so.

Finding and Conclusions 

One is at a loss to know how this case made its way to an adjudication hearing as there was so little between the parties. The complainant voluntarily left her employment and her claim for a month’s salary is entirely fanciful and without merit.

The net issue in respect of the salary shortfall is a mere €100.

The complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 succeeds although I take some account of the complainant’s absence from the workplace for a period of time during which the employer ought to have complied. Nonetheless he did not do so.

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.

I uphold her complaint CA-00008405-001 under Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and award her €150.

I uphold complaint CA-00008405-002 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and award her €100.

Her second complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 CA-00008405-003 is entirely without merit and is dismissed. 

Dated:   04 April 2017