Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Sales Assistant

Retail outlet

Representatives

Donnacha Anhold Carter Anhold &    Company Solicitors

Guemova Oble

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-00010221-001

14/03/2017

Complaint    seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6    of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00010777-001

11/04/2017

The claimant was employed as a   Sales Assistant with the respondent from the 23^rd.February 2016 to the 14^th.December 2016.The   claimant submitted the respondent was in breach of the Act for failing to pay   her for hours worked in the course of her employment.It was submitted that   the claimant worked an additional 30 minutes prior to the opening of the shop   and an additional 30 minutes after the shop closed but was never paid for this working time.A   detailed breakdown of the additional hours worked was submitted into   evidence and it was estimated that the   claimant was owed €1,215.24 in outstanding wages.It was submitted that the   claimant worked early prior to opening   time at preparing food for display and in the evening after closing time her   additional hours were spent storing food away and on cleaning duties.It was   submitted that the claimant did not make a c omplaint while in the employment   of the respondent for fear of loosing her job.It was further submitted that   she did not complain about signing the respondent’s working time records   which did not reflect any additional working time at the beginning and end of   each shift , for fear of loosing her job.A medical report was submitted on   behalf of the claimant setting out the mental health challenges she faced   following the termination of her employment.It was submitted that the delay   in making the complaint was attributable to the claimant’s mental health and   an extension of time was sought to consider the entirety of the claimant’s   employment in the calculation of loss.

The respondent denied that   there had been any breach of the Act – it was submitted that their business   employed over 160 people in 29 shops throughout the country.It was advanced   that the claimant made no complaint about a shortfall in wages and that she was   never asked to arrive early at work or remain late after the shop closed .The   respondent’s working time records were submitted in evidence and it was   submitted that they supported the respondent’s contention that there had been   no breach of the Act as the claimant had confirmed in writing her acceptance   that the hours set out in the respondent’s records was correct.

The claimant’s complaint was received on the 11^th.April   2017 .I am satisfied on the basis of the submissions made by the claimant’s   representative and on foot of the GP report submitted at the hearing that there was reasonable cause   for the delay in making the complaint and consequently the time frame for the   calculation of loss is the 12^th.April 2016 – 11^th.April   2017.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at   the hearing and noted the conflicting accounts of the parties.

Having considered the evidence   of both parties , I find the evidence of the claimant to be more credible – I accept her contention that she signed the   working time records and did not complain about their accuracy because she   was afraid of loosing her job. I find on the balance of probabilities that   the complaint is well founded .

I require the respondent to pay   the claimant € 1,015.44 compensation within 42 days of the date of this   decision.