ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003009
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | A Landscaper |
Complaints for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00004164-001 | 30/04/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00004164-002 | 30/04/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00004164-003 | 30/04/2016 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00004164-004 | 30/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/03/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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 Driver from 16th March 2015 to 8th January 2016. He was paid €10.00 per hour and he worked an average of 42 hours per week. He has claimed that he did not get written contract of employment, did not get breaks, is owed wages and did not get minimum notice. |
1) Terms of Employment (Information) Act CA 4164-003
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant never received a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment. He requested it on many occasions. He has sought compensation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on file advising both parties to this complaint of the details of this hearing. I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented. Based on uncontested evidence I find that the Respondent has breached Sec 3 of this Act. Sec 3 (1) states,“ An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment” I note that Sec 7 (2) (d) of the Act states, ”compensation of such an amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration”. I find that compensation is warranted. |
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 Sec 3 of this Act.
According to Sec 7(2) I have decided that the Respondent should pay the Complainant compensation of €850 to be paid within six weeks of the date below.
2) Payment of Wages Act 1991 CA 4164-002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Time limit
The Complainant has sought an extension to the time limit. He stated that he did not get a contract of employment which would have shown him how to deal with his grievance. He gave the Respondent time to pay his monies but they would not reply to him. |
I have decided to grant the extension to the time limit. I find that he did not receive a written contract of employment which denied him the information that he was legally entitled to. I also note that he pursued the monies owed but got no response.
This complaint was presented to the Commission on 30th April 2016 therefore the period that may be investigated is 1st May 2015 to 30th April 2016.
Claim
He stated that he worked 8 hours on the following dates but was not paid; 12/9, 10/10, 17/10, 31/10, 21/11. He has claimed 5 X 8 X €10 = €400.00 gross. |
In addition he worked the following dates and hours and was not paid
5/9 -8 hours, 18/9 -1 hour, 19/9 -8 hours, 19/8 -3 hours, 29/8 -8 hours, 1/7 -2.5 hours, 3/7 -2 hours, 11/7 -8 hours a total of 40.5 hours, amounting to €405.00 gross.
Total amount claimed = €805.00 gross.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing.
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on file advising both parties to this complaint of the details of this hearing. I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented. Based on uncontested evidence I find that the Complainant is owed wages as claimed above. Therefore I find that the Respondent has breached Sec 5 of this Act. Sec 6(2) states, “the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such an amount … not exceeding (a) the net amount of wages” |
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 contravened Sec 5 of the Act.
As per Sec 6 (2) I have decided that the claim is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €805.00 less statutory deductions within six weeks of the date below.
3) Organisation of Working Time Act 1994 CA 4164-004Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Findings and Conclusions:
Sec 12 of the Act sets out clearly the breaks that must be provided 12(1) “an employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes”. 12(2)” “an employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes”. Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that the Complainant did not receive proper breaks I find that the Respondent has breached Sec 12 of this Act and compensation is warranted. 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 Sec 12 of this Act. As per Sec 27(3) (a) I have decided that the complaint was well founded. As per Sec 27(3) (c) I require employer to pay compensation of €600 within six weeks of the date below. |
4) Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 CA 4164-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that his employment ended abruptly and he was not given minimum notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on file advising both parties to this complaint of the details of this hearing. I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented. Based on uncontested evidence I find that the Complainant did not receive minimum notice when his employment ended. As per the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act I find that he is entitled to one week’s notice amounting to €420.00 |
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.
I have decided that the Respondent has breached this Act.
I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €420.00 within six weeks of the date below.
Dated: 09 May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
No contract, Wages, Breaks, Minimum Notice. |