Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Hair Stylist

Hair Salon

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

CA-00008584-001

5^th December 2016

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 18th September 2014 to 1st October 2016 and her weekly rate of pay was €461.00c.     The Complainant was submitting that the Respondent was in breach of her rights and entitlements under the 1997 Act in relation to annual leave and public holiday entitlements.     The complaint was presented to the WRC on 5th December 2016.

The Complainant said that she was employed by the Respondent as a hair stylist from 18^th September 2014.   The Complainant said that she handed in her notice on 25^th September 2016.   She said that she was wished the best of luck with no animosity on either part.     On the following week the Complainant was told that she would be finishing on 8^th October.     She said that on 4^th October she received a telephone call asking her to meet with the Respondent.     She said that at this meeting she was told about NERA Inspections.   She was handed a letter addressed to the Respondent from their Accountant stating that since the NERA Inspection it had come to attention that the Complainant was overpaid since January 2016 and that the Complainant now owed the Respondent €1,254.10c. As she was owed €834.40 the Complainant was informed that the Respondent would not be looking for money owed from her.

The Complainant said she sought a detailed report of the alleged overpayment.

The Complainant said the Respondent became a limited company in August 2015 and at that stage she signed a written contract of employment; she was contracted for a 4 day week that was reduced to 3 days, which was to be reviewed in March 2016.     The Complainant said that the Respondent was aware of the alleged overpayment and she said that when speaking to one of the Directors present at the Hearing, that Director made her aware of the alleged mistake on the Respondent’s part, but they were quite happy to continue paying her the way they had been paying.

The Complainant submitted that she was entitled to receive her outstanding annual leave and public holiday pay in the sum of €834.40c and she sought a finding and decision to that effect.

The Respondent denied that there any breach of the Complainant’s rights in relation to holidays under the Act.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had received her full and appropriate holiday entitlements in the relevant period.

The Complainant made detailed submissions of the holidays and holiday pay taken or received by the Complainant in the relevant period.

I have carefully considered the evidence and submissions made and I have concluded as follows.

I note that in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 the annual leave year for the purposes of the Act in from 1^st April to 31^st March.   Also in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and Section 41 of the Workplace Relation Act 2015 I can only consider a period of 6 months prior to the date of the presentation of the complaint to the WRC.   In this case this means that the relevant period in relation to annual leave is from 1^st April 2016 to 1^st October 2016 and from 5^th June 2016 to 1^st October 2016 in relation to public holiday entitlements.

The records in relation to these periods were gone through at the Hearing and it became clear that the Complainant received her annual leave and public holiday entitlements in relation to this relevant period.   I note that this fact was accepted and not disputed by the Complainant at the Hearing.

Based on the above findings and conclusions I decide and declare that the complaints under Section 27 of the 1997 Act in relation to annual leave and public holiday entitlements in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Act are not well founded; they are rejected and are not upheld.