ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00004220

Complaints for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/02/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 , section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission, 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 complaint.

                                             A Domestic Cleaner V A Bar/Restaurant

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The complainant was represented by her Solicitor .Her Solicitor informed the hearing that his client was ill disposed through illness but sought adjudication of her claims. He sought an amendment to the complaint form to include four named owners of the business.

The Solicitor for the complainant gave a background to the case. The complainant had commenced work on January 8, 2015.

The complainant finished work for the respondent on 29 January 2016 and agreed informally with the respondent that she and a colleague, the Head Chef would take over the running of the business. The transitionary arrangements were to include a rent free period of 8 weeks, a continuation of the respondent’s bill payment system to cover any income and a verbal agreement that the complainant would continue to be paid for a further two week period of cleaning.

The complainant was not provided with her statutory terms of employment, she did not receive 6 public holidays due to her. During her period of employment, the complainant only received 4-5 days annual leave .She was not paid €207.45 in wages due on 19 February, 2016. The complainant’s representative stated that the complainant had no understanding of her statutory entitlements whilst working for the respondent and he had been instructed to seek redress on her behalf.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

There was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. On 29 January 2016, the respondent submitted an email to the WRC stating that the respondent would not be in attendance at the hearing of this case as they were co-operating with a Department of Social Protection investigation into the complainant.

The WRC re-affirmed the details of the hearing followed by confirmation that the hearing would proceed as planned

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 and under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

Attendance at hearing:

My duty under S.41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is to inquire into a complaint and give the parties an opportunity to be heard. I understand that the complainant was ill disposed on the morning of the hearing. I appreciate that she may well have instructed her Solicitor to run her case ,however, while I heard the submissions of the complainants Solicitor ,I find that the absence of the complainant from the hearing to be fatal to my consideration of the case of her employment rights .I was not satisfied that I had sufficient detail before me on the employment relationship between the complainant and the respondent .

1 Complaint under Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 CA-00006165-001

I have inquired into this complaint and given the parties an opportunity to be heard. I found that I had insufficient evidence before in which to determine this claim. I find that the complaint is not well founded.

2 Complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00006165-002

I have inquired into this complaint and find that it is out of time in accordance with S.41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and I do not have the jurisdiction to hear it.

3Complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00006165-003

I have inquired into this complaint and given the parties the opportunity to be heard. I was unable to discern the status of the statutory records of annual leave retained by the respondent. I found that I had insufficient evidence before me to determine this claim .The claim is not well founded .

4 Complaints under Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00006165-004

I have inquired into this complaint and given the parties the opportunity to be heard. I received a copy of the P45 for the complainant dated 29 January 2016 which recorded earnings of €2599.20. This was linked to 10 weeks of work during 2016. I was not in a position to ask the complainant directly to elaborate on this given the details on the P45.

As the complainant’s weekly wage was submitted as €365.00 per week, I find that I have insufficient evidence before me in which to determine this claim, therefore this complaint is not well founded.

Patsy Doyle, Adjudicator.

Dated:   15^th May 2017