ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004282
Complaints for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/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-00006183-001 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00006183-002 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00006183-003 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00006183-004 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00006183-005 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00006183-006 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00006183-007 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00006183-008 | 28/07/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00006183-009 | 28/07/2016 |
Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, 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 Hotel General Manager from 1st October 2003 to 3rd February 2016. He was paid €1,250 gross and €800 net per week. He has claimed that he is owed wages, holiday and Public Holiday pay, minimum notice and redundancy pay. He withdrew the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.
1) Payment of Wages ACT - CA 6183 001/007
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
He stated that he was not paid for the week leading up to the closure. He worked for one week after the closure for the purpose s of checking the buildings and dealing with service /maintenance matters. He has claimed 2 X €1,250 = €2,500 gross. |
|
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:The Liquidator accepted that the Complainant was owed one week’s pay leading up to the closure. He was unaware of the week’s work after the closure but accepted the Complainant’s evidence. |
FindingsI accept the Complainant’s uncontested evidence and I find that he is owed two weeks wages. I note that Sec 6(2) of the Payment of Wages Act “the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such an amount … not exceeding (a) the net amount of wages”Therefore I find that he is owed 2 X €800 (net) = €1,600. Decision:Section 41(4) 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 contravened Sec 5 of the Payment of Wages Act. As per Sec 6 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act I have decided that the claim is well founded in whole and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,600 within six weeks of the date below. |
2) Organisation of Working Time Act CA 6183 005/006Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:1)Holidays He stated that the Financial Controlled told him that he was entitled to 24 days holidays at the closure of the business. He had an annual entitlement to 25 days. He received 5 days holidays and so is claiming the balance of 20 days holidays. 2) Public Holidays He has claimed for four Public Holidays Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:The Liquidator accepted the Complainant’s evidence. Findings1)Holidays |
Based on the uncontested evidence I accept the Complainant’s evidence that he is owed 20 days holidays amounting to €1,250/5 = 250 x 20 = €5,000. 2) Public Holidays I accept the Complainant’s evidence and find that he is owed 4 days amounting to €1,000.
I find that the Respondent has breached Sec 19, 21 and 23. |
|
Decision:Section 41(4) 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 and I require them to pay the Complainant €6,000 for the economic loss. This is to be paid within six weeks of the date below. |
|
3) Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act CA 6183 003/008/009
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant stated that he did not receive minimum notice when the business closed abruptly. He has claimed 6 week pay.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Liquidator accepted the Complainant’s evidence that no minimum notice was paid.
Findings
I find that the Complainant did not receive minimum notice when the business closed.
I find that he is owed six weeks pay as per the provisions of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act.
I find that he is owed 6 X €1,250 = €7,500
Decision:
Section 41(4) 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 Complainant is owed six weeks pay in minimum notice amounting to €7,500.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €7,500 within six weeks of the date below.
4) Unfair Dismissals Acts CA 6183 004
The Unfair dismissals complaint was withdrawn.
Decision:
Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
As this complaint was withdrawn, no decision was required.
5) Redundancy Payments Acts CA 6183 002
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
The Complainant stated that the business closed abruptly. As a result his position was redundant. He did not receive any redundancy payment.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Liquidator accepts that no redundancy was paid.
Findings
I accept the evidence before this hearing that the business closed down without notice.
I accept that the Complainant did not receive any redundancy payment.
I find that a genuine redundancy situation has arisen.
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint.
I have decided that a genuine redundancy exists in this case.
I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant statutory redundancy as per the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Act. This is to be done within six weeks of the date below.
Eugene Hanly
Adjudication Officer
Dated: 29th March 2017