ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006086
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Restaurant |
Complaint(s):
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-00007844-001 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007844-003 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007844-004 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007844-005 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007844-006 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00007844-007 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00007844-008 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00007844-009 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts | CA-00007844-010 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00007844-011 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00007844-012 | 26/10/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001 | CA-00007844-013 | 26/10/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and Section 13 of the 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, who suffers from a Brain Acquired Injury, was placed in employment with the Respondent as part of a return to work initiative. The placement took place under the auspices of an employment service which is run in conjunction with the Department of Social Protection. The Complainant’s employment with the Respondent commenced on 28 April 2016 and terminated on 19 September 2016, when he left work during a working shift. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant raised a series of complaints in relation to his employment with the Respondent as follows: CA-00007844-001: The Complainant contended that he was not given compensation for working on a Sunday. CA-00007844-002: The Complainant contended that he did not receive a daily rest period. CA-00007844-003: The Complainant contended that he did not receive breaks. CA-00007844-004: The Complainant contended that he did not receive his holiday pay/annual leave entitlement. CA-00007844-005: The Complainant contended that he did not receive his Public Holiday entitlements. CA-00007844-006: The Complainant contended that he was not compensated for the loss of his annual leave entitlements when he left his employment. CA-00007844-007: The Complainant contended that he was not compensated for the loss of his Public Holiday entitlements when he left his employment. CA-00007844-008: The Complainant contended that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment. CA-00007844-0019: The Complainant contended that he was not notified in writing of changes to his terms of employment. CA-00007844-010: The Complainant contended that he was forced to leave his job due to the conduct of his employer and others at his place of work. CA-00007844-011: The Complainant contended that he was bullied and harassed at work. CA-00007844-012: The Complainant contended that he was discriminated against by his employer on the grounds of his disability. CA-00007844-013: While the Complainant initially identified a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work Act), 2001, relating to Fixed Term and Part Time work, no evidence was presented in relation to this aspect of his complaint at the Hearing.
In support of the above complaints, the Complainant stated that from the first day he started the job he received verbal abuse from his employer and was required to work in unfair working conditions. He contended that he did not receive breaks for over seven hours of work and when he did receive a break he was made to stand in the corner to eat his lunch and was not allowed to sit down. The Complainant also contends that he was forced to carry out dangerous duties that were not within his job description, including electrical work, plumbing, repairing the kitchen roof and painting with hazardous chemicals. The Complainant further contended that, as he had a disability, extra care and training should have been provided to him. He contended that he received no induction training or a contract of employment setting out his terms and conditions. According to the Complainant’s evidence he tried on many occasions to speak to his employer about this situation but he was ignored. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent disputed all of the complaints being made by the Complainant. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was a regular customer and would frequently enquire as to the availability of work. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was subsequently employed as part of an employment initiative and was provided with a contract of employment including a statement of terms and conditions. The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was provided with the appropriate remuneration at National Minimum Wage level and that appropriate premiums were paid. It was further contended that the Complainant was also provided with his statutory breaks. The Respondent denied that the Complainant was requested to do any work which was unsafe or hazardous. The Respondent stated that when the Complainant requested three days off to attend a wedding, he was provided with the opportunity of making of these last hours, at a time when the restaurant was not open, by doing some light work around the premises. This work included changing lightbulbs, cleaning some gutters over a door and painting a small fence with regular paint, which the Complainant himself purchased from a local hardware store on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent stated that the Complainant walked off the premises on the second day of performing the lighter duties, saying he was not getting paid to do such work. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Evidence was submitted at the Hearing by the Respondent on behalf of the Employment Service which organised the Complainant’s employment. The authenticity of this evidence was confirmed subsequent to the Hearing. I am satisfied from this evidence that a representative from the employment service had visited the Complainant on two occasions in the workplace and the feedback was very positive with regard to the Complainant’s employment. This evidence also suggests that the Complainant’s termination of the work arrangement was therefore unreasonable. This conclusion was further confirmed by the evidence provided at the hearing by the Complainant’s supervisor. This witness contended that the Complainant was happy and contented in his job for a number of weeks and never made any complaint The witness stated that she was present on the day that the Complainant walked out. Her evidence suggested that the Complainant, who was fine during the morning shift, became more aggressive in the afternoon and just walked off the job. Finally, at the hearing, the Respondent provided the Complainant with a cheque covering his annual leave and public holiday entitlement. The Respondent claimed that, due to the suddenness of the Complainant’s departure from work, he had not been in a position to provide him with this remuneration. The Respondent further stated that when the Complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC, he (the Respondent) was unsure as to how they should deal with the matter. However he was happy to make full payment at the Hearing and provided evidence as to the basis on which the calculations were made. The Complainant accepted the payment as covering that being sought on foot of this complaint. Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced at the Hearing I am satisfied that, with the exception of the payment in relation to annual leave/Public Holidays, there is no basis in fact to the remainder of the Complainant’s complaints |
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.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
Based on the evidence adduced at the Hearing and in line with the conclusions/findings set out above, I am satisfied that, with the exception of the elements of the complaints relating to outstanding pay, there is no basis to any of the other aspects of the Complainant’s complaints. Therefore, my decision is as follows: CA-00007844-001: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-002: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-003: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-004: There was a basis to this element of the Complainant’s complaint. However, the Respondent addressed the matter in full at the Hearing, in a manner that satisfied the Complainant. CA-00007844-005: There was a basis to this element of the Complainant’s complaint. However, the Respondent addressed the matter in full at the Hearing, in a manner that satisfied the Complainant. CA-00007844-006: There was a basis to this element of the Complainant’s complaint. However, the Respondent addressed the matter in full at the Hearing, in a manner that satisfied the Complainant. CA-00007844-007: There was a basis to this element of the Complainant’s complaint. However, the Respondent addressed the matter in full at the Hearing, in a manner that satisfied the Complainant. CA-00007844-008: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld.
CA-00007844-009: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-010: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-011: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-012: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld. CA-00007844-013: The Complainant’s complaint in this regard is not upheld.
|
Dated: 06th June 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
|