ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006259

ComplainantRespondentAnonymised Parties A Worker V A Catering Company 

Complaint(s):

ActComplaint/Dispute Reference No.Date of Receipt Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00008529-001 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00008529-002 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00008529-003 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00008529-004 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00008529-006 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 CA-00008529-007 01/12/2016 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00008529-008 01/12/2016   Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/03/2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or National Minimum Wage Act 2000, and/or Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, and/or Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and/or Payment of Wages Act 1991] 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 has made multiple claims (see Above)

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted payslips and rosters of the Claimant. He refuted the claims of minimum wages and hours of work. The Claimant was let go after an incident where she failed to attend work. An email from the Claimant confirmed that she did not dispute this incident and accepted that the Respondent was reasonable in his decision. The Respondent accepted that the Claimant was due minimum notice.  

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Claimant disputed the Respondent’s evidence on hours and holidays including public holidays. She was employed by the Respondent from November 2007 until July 2016. She was pay €8.00 per hour and worked up to 12 hours per day. She did not receive proper breaks or paid annual leave. She did not receive written terms of employment. The Claimant was afforded three weeks to submit further details of her hours of work and rosters.

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. I have considered the submissions of both parties. There is a complete conflict of evidence in this case. I therefore on the balance of probability accept that the Claimant is entitled to payment of four weeks’ notice under the Minimum Notice Act. I award her €200.00 for not receiving written terms of employment. I do not find the others claims well founded and they fail.   Dated:   18.12.2017 Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Tierney Key Words: Multiple claims