ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011850
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A childcare worker | A crèche |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00015717-001 | 10/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00015717-002 | 10/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00015717-003 | 10/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00015717-004 | 10/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 10th November 2017, the complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 28th March 2018.
The complainant attended the adjudication. At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 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 worked as a childcare assistant for the respondent between the 5th January 2015 and the 23rd June 2017. The respondent closed abruptly and without notice. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the outset of the adjudication, the complainant confirmed the identity of the respondent (a limited company), referring to a pay slip.
The complainant outlined that the crèche closed on the 23rd June 2017. This was one month before her maternity leave, which started on the 20th July 2017. She was entitled to the public holidays which accrued during her maternity leave. The complainant outlined that her weekly pay was €460. She was owed one week’s wages and four days of annual leave (worth €400). She is also entitled to minimum notice pay of two weeks.
The complainant said that interviewed for positions in January 2018 and could not find full-time work. She secured a part-time role and was to start work at a different childcare provider the week after the adjudication. She will then work between 9am to 1pm and earn €250 per week (20 hours at €12.50). She will be down about €210 per week.
In respect of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act claim, the complainant outlined that she had sought her contract over the two years and five months she worked for the respondent. She wanted a document stating her job description and her salary, in order to have security on paper. The respondent told her that one would be provided, but this did not occur. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There were no submissions or evidence presented by or on behalf of the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant has made four complaints relating to how her employment with the respondent ended and the monies owed to her. In evidence, the complainant set out a clear and coherent account of her employment, which was not contradicted by the respondent. I make the following findings in respect of each complaint. CA-00015717-001 Payment of Wages Act This is a complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. The complainant asserts that she is owed one week’s wages (€460) and holiday pay of €400. I find that the complainant is entitled to redress for both elements of her Payment of Wages claim. I, therefore, award redress of €860.
CA-00015717-002 Terms of Employment (Information) Act The complainant outlined that the respondent did not provide her with a statement of the terms of her employment, as required by section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. I award redress of €1,840.
CA-00015717-003 Unfair Dismissals Act The complainant outlined that her employment ended abruptly, without any process or grounds given. I find that the respondent has not rebutted the presumption of Unfair Dismissal. In assessing redress, I note that the complainant was due to commence a period of protected leave shortly before her dismissal. The unfair dismissal deprived her of the protection of being able to return to her job after the leave ended. The complainant gave a detailed account of trying to find alternative employment and her success in finding a new role, albeit part-time. While the complainant will have ongoing financial loss after starting the new role, I note that she is likely to increase her hours or find a full-time role in due course. Taking these factors together, I award redress of €10,000.
CA-00015717-004 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment I find that the complainant was not paid notice pay and she is entitled to two weeks of notice pay. I award redress in the amount of €920.
|
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 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.
CA-00015717-001 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €860.
CA-00015717-002 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €1,840.
CA-00015717-003 For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €10,000.
CA-00015717-004 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €920.
|
Dated: 17/09/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Unfair Dismissals Act Notice pay |