ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009972
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Driver | A Furniture Business |
Complaints:
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-00013028-001 | 03/08/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00013028-002 | 03/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 8 February 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
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 referred the within complaints 3 August 2017. They were first delegated to my colleague, Mr Pat Brady, on 27 October 2017, and following the correction of a technical error which arose on the part of the Commission, to me by the Director General on 24 January 2018. I subsequently heard them on 8 February 2018. The final correspondence in connection with the complaints was received from the respondent solicitor on 16 March 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant states that the respondent either failed to pay him €220 due to him on 1 May 2017, or unlawfully deducted €220 from his wages on the same date. This arose from the way in which the complainant took his annual leave. The respondent’s leave year runs from 1 May to 30 April of each year. In the leave year in question, the complainant was afforded only 19 of his 20 days of statutory leave. The missing day of statutory leave is subject to a separate complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. However, the complainant also states that he was due two additional days of leave which he could not take. Accordingly, he seeks the above sum in holiday pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
It is the respondent’s position that the complainant took his annual leave as needed and that by the time he left the respondent’s employment in July 2017, had effectively overtaken his annual leave and ended up owing the respondent €50 as a result. The respondent further states that the complainant was facilitated with two weeks’ annual leave in June 2017, as well as paternity leave and time off in lieu. The complainant’s annual leave sheets were submitted after the hearing in evidence and confirm this. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the complaints are not well founded. The evidence shows clearly that the complainant was facilitated with taking his annual leave, and is therefore not owed holiday pay by the respondent. Such a situation could only arise if he had subsequently waived his right to the leave days in question, which clearly did not happen. Accordingly, not paying the complainant holiday pay cannot be an unlawful deduction, or failure to pay his wages, within the meaning of S. 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
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.
For the reasons set out above, the within complaints fail. |
Dated: 25 April 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Stephen Bonnlander
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – holiday pay for leave entitlement in excess of statutory leave – complainant in fact overtook leave prior to resigning – no unlawful deduction of holiday pay. |