ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006853

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	Sales Representative	Did not attend

Complaints:

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-00008856-001	20/12/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973	CA-00008856-002	20/12/2016
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00008856-004	20/12/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Location of Hearing: Room 4.05 Lansdowne House

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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 was employed as a Sales Representative from 18^th June 2014 to 14^th July 2016. She was paid €300 net per week. She has claimed that she did not receive holidays and Public Holiday pay, minimum notice and redundancy payment.

The complaints ADJ 7138 and 7140 were duplicates.

Prelininary point Extension to the Time limit

Claimant

She stated that she did not get a written contract of employment. She was not given a grievance procedure which would have advised her of her rights and entitlement and also how to process a complaint.

She tried to have a good relationship with the Respondent. She discussed her employment issues with him and he kept promising her that he would address them all. It was not until a colleague brought complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission that she realised that he would not face up to his responsibilities and give her entitlements. She received advice in October and they wrote to the Respondent and gave him a few weeks to pay what she was entitled however he did not. The extension should be granted.

Respondent

They did not attend the hearing and were not represented.

Decision

Based on uncontested evidence I have decided to grant the extension as I have decided that reasonable cause has been established. I note that she did not get a contract of employment, did not get a grievance procedure. These were important pieces of information that she had a legal entitlement to but was deprived of. I also note that in good faith she gave the Respondent an opportunity to address her grievances but he failed to do so.

The complaint was presented to the Commission on 20^th December 2016 therefore the period that may be investigated is 21^st December 2015 to 14^th July 2016.

1) Organisation of Working Time Act CA 8856-001

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

1)Holidays

She worked 3 days per week X 8 hours per day = 24 hours per week X 52 weeks = 1,248 hours per year X 2 years. She is entitled to 12 days holidays per year on a pro rata basis = 2 years entitlement = €2,400. She stated that she received one week (3 days) holidays in the qualifying period.

2)Public Holidays

She did not work on Public Holidays, when she was rostered to work a day that the Public Holiday fell she was allocated another day. She has claimed 9 Public Holidays per year X 2 = €100 per day = €1,800.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

They did not attend the hearing and were not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

Based on the uncontested evidence before the hearing I find as follows:

1)Holidays

The holiday year is defined by this Act as running from 1^st April to 31^st March each year. Therefore the holiday years for investigation are 1^st April 2015 to 31^st March 2016 and 1^st April 2016 to 14^th July 2016 the date of termination of employment.

I find that in the holiday year 1^st April 2015 to 31^st March 2016 she was entitled to 12 days holidays less 3 days taken. Therefore I find that she is owed 9 days amounting to €900.

In the period 1^st April 2016 to 14^th July 201+ I find that she is entitled to 3.5 days €350.

I find that she is entitled to a total of €1,250.

2) Public Holidays

I find that she was not compensated for the Public Holidays. I find that she was entitled to be compensated by one fifth of a week’s pay for each of the Public Holidays.

In the allowable period 21^st December 2015 to 14^th July 2016 the following Public Holidays occurred,

Dec 25^th, 26^th 2015, Jan 1^st, March 17^th, Easter Monday, May and June = 7 X 1/5 of €300 = €60 X 9 days = €540.

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.

I have decided that the Respondent has breached Sections 19, 21 and 23 of this Act.

I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,250 for the economic loss of the holidays. In addition I order the Respondent to pay €1,000 for breach of her rights under this Act.

I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €540 for the economic loss of the Public Holidays.

I order that these monies be paid within six weeks of the date below.

2) Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act CA 8856-002

Summary of Complainant’s Case

She was advised by ‘phone call that the business had closed with immediate effect. She was not given any notice. She has claimed two week’s pay in notice.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

They did not attend the hearing and were not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that the Complainant did not receive any notice of termination of employment. As per the terms of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act I find that she is entitled to two weeks pay amounting to €600.

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.

I have decided that the Respondent has breached this Act.

I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €600 within six weeks of the date below.

3) Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA 8856-003

Summary of Complainant’s Case

The Complainant stated that her employment was terminated on 14^th July 2016 without notice. She requested redundancy payment but the Respondent refused to pay it and refused to sign the Form RP50. She is seeking her statutory entitlements.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

They did not attend the hearing and were not represented.

Findings and Conclusions:

Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that the Complainant did not receive any redundancy payment.

I find that a genuine redundancy situation has arisen.

I find that she is entitled to statutory redundancy.

I find that the Respondent has breached this Act.

Decision:

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.

I have decided that a genuine redundancy situation has arisen.

I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to her statutory rights to a redundancy payment.

I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant statutory redundancy entitlement as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967.

This is to be done within six weeks of the date below.

Dated: 10^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words:

Holiday & Public Holiday pay, minimum notice and redundancy

ADJ-00006853

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006853

Complaints:

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Sales Representative from 18th June 2014 to 14th July 2016. She was paid €300 net per week. She has claimed that she did not receive holidays and Public Holiday pay, minimum notice and redundancy payment.

Prelininary point Extension to the Time limit

1) Organisation of Working Time Act CA 8856-001

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

2) Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act CA 8856-002

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

3) Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 CA 8856-003

Summary of Complainant’s Case

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Findings and Conclusions:

Decision:

The Complainant was employed as a Sales Representative from 18^th June 2014 to 14^th July 2016. She was paid €300 net per week. She has claimed that she did not receive holidays and Public Holiday pay, minimum notice and redundancy payment.