ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007966
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Restaurant |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00010794-001 | 12/04/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00010794-002 | 12/04/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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.
Background:
The complainant had been employed briefly as a chef by the respondent from October 21st 2016 to March 32rd 2017 on a rate of just under €18 per hour for a forty-two hour week. On March 26th he was told the business was going to close and his employment was terminated the following day. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant confirmed the facts set out in the Background above in his direct evidence. He said he had not been paid for the first week of his employment and was promised that this would be paid on the termination of his employment. He also worked about sixty hours overtime for which he was not paid. Finally he was not paid for the last week of his employment. He also stated that payment of wages was regularly delayed by the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and no explanation was given for its failure to do so. Correspondence was received by the WRC on June 30th 2017 confirming that the business had been closed since April 24th and had gone into liquidation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the complainant had only five months service at the time his employment terminated he does not meet the eligibility requirements of two years service in the Redundancy Payments Act. Accordingly his complaint under that Act fails. In respect of his complainant under the Payment of Wages Act I found his evidence credible and he produced documentary evidence of the hours worked which support his complaint. I find that he is owed a total of one hundred and forty four hours wages at €17.85 per hour approximately; a total of €2,571.00 |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
For the reasons outlined above complaint CA-00010794-001 under the Redundancy Payments Acts fails and is not upheld. Complaint CA-00010794-002 under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is upheld and I award him €2,571.00 gross and subject to the usual statutory deductions. |
Dated: 24th August 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Redundancy, Payment of Wages |