ADJUDICATION OFFICER CORRECTION ORDER
This Correction Order is made pursuant to section 39(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and/or section 40(16) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It should be read in conjunction with the Adjudication Officer’s Decision of 27 August 2018
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010479
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Installation Operative | A Water Processor |
Representatives | In Person | Director |
Complaint(s):
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-00013889-001 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00013889-002 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00013889-003 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00013889-004 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013889-005 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013889-006 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00013889-007 | 13/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The respondent employed the complainant as an installation operative in the period from 5th of January 2015 until the 17th of July 2017. He was paid €600 net (inclusive of subsistence) or €541 gross per week and worked 40 hours per week. The parties made oral submission to the hearing and provided written details on request post hearing. The complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991(ref. CA-00013889-001 and CA-00013889-002) were withdrawn at hearing. The complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (ref. CA-00013889-004) was not pursued at hearing. Complaint (ref. CA00013889-007 is a duplication of complaint ref. CA-00013889-006) and I will deal with the latter complaint. I will make no decision in respect of these complaints. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00013889-003: The complainant submits that he was not paid his entitlement to statutory annual leave on cessation in the amount of 2 weeks of pay. CA-00013889-005: The complainant submits that he was informed on the 17th of July 2017 that he could either keep working without wages (he hadn’t been paid for the previous 2 weeks) or be laid off until the issue of payments due to the respondent was resolved. His subsequent efforts to have the respondent fill an RP9 were unsuccessful. Accordingly, he submits that he was dismissed on the day by way of redundancy. CA-00013889-006: The complainant submits that he was laid off without notice on the 17th of July 2017 and the respondent failed to pay him his statutory entitlement to minimum notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00013889-003: The respondent submits that the complainant is owed 1 week of statutory annual leave entitlement. CA-00013889-005: The respondent submits that it was never the intention to lay the complainant off rather that there was an issue concerning the transfer of bank accounts arising from the resignation of one of the directors. The complainant was not presented with an ultimatum in the terms submitted rather he requested his P45 via text. The letter for social welfare was also provided at his request. CA-00013889-006: The complainant requested his own P45 and therefore was not entitled to statutory minimum notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00013889-003: I find that that the complainant is entitled to 1 weeks of statutory annual leave. The record provided was wholly inadequate as it relates to the proper calculation of entitlement which will be reflected in the quantum of compensation under this Act. CA-00013889-005: It is a matter of fact that the respondent was not able to pay the complainant at the time the employment relationship ceased. Furthermore, it was not able to state that he would be temporarily laid off. In his own evidence the director for the respondent stated that a new lad had been taken on last week (beginning of December 2017). Therefore, the position had become redundant at 17th of July 2017. CA-00013889-006: Whether the complainant was let go or not, circumstances outside of his control dictated the pace. In the circumstances he was entitled to consider his position redundant on the day other than the employer temporarily laid him off. That patently was not the arrangement between them. In such circumstances he was entitled to his statutory minimum notice. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00013889-003: The complaint is well founded. I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant his statutory entitlement to €541 (say five hundred and forty-one euro) gross and a further €700 (say seven hundred euro) net in compensation for breach of s.23 of the Act. CA-00013889-005: The complaint is well founded. I hereby award the complainant a statutory lump sum based on a start date of 5th of January 2015, termination date of 17th of July 2017 and gross weekly pay of €541. Such award made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts in the cognisable period. CA-00013889-006: The complaint is well founded and I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant his entitlement to statutory minimum notice in the amount of €1082 (say one thousand and eighty-two euro). |
Dated: 27th August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010479
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Installation Operative | A Water Processor |
Complaint(s):
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-00013889-001 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00013889-002 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00013889-003 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00013889-004 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013889-005 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00013889-006 | 13/09/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00013889-007 | 13/09/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The respondent employed the complainant as an installation operative in the period from 5th of January 2015 until the 17th of July 2017. He was paid €600 net (inclusive of subsistence) or €541 gross per week and worked 40 hours per week. The parties made oral submission to the hearing and provided written details on request post hearing. The complaints under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991(ref. CA-00013889-001 and CA-00013889-002) were withdrawn at hearing. The complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (ref. CA-00013889-004) was not pursued at hearing. Complaint (ref. CA00013889-007 is a duplication of complaint ref. CA-00013889-006) and I will deal with the latter complaint. I will make no decision in respect of these complaints. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00013889-003: The complainant submits that he was not paid his entitlement to statutory annual leave on cessation in the amount of 2 weeks of pay. CA-00013889-005: The complainant submits that he was informed on the 17th of July 2017 that he could either keep working without wages (he hadn’t been paid for the previous 2 weeks) or be laid off until the issue of payments due to the respondent was resolved. His subsequent efforts to have the respondent fill an RP9 were unsuccessful. Accordingly, he submits that he was dismissed on the day by way of redundancy. CA-00013889-006: The complainant submits that he was laid off without notice on the 17th of July 2017 and the respondent failed to pay him his statutory entitlement to minimum notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00013889-003: The respondent submits that the complainant is owed 1 week of statutory annual leave entitlement. CA-00013889-005: The respondent submits that it was never the intention to lay the complainant off rather that there was an issue concerning the transfer of bank accounts arising from the resignation of one of the directors. The complainant was not presented with an ultimatum in the terms submitted rather he requested his P45 via text. The letter for social welfare was also provided at his request. CA-00013889-006: The complainant requested his own P45 and therefore was not entitled to statutory minimum notice. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00013889-003: I find that that the complainant is entitled to 1 weeks of statutory annual leave. The record provided was wholly inadequate as it relates to the proper calculation of entitlement which will be reflected in the quantum of compensation under this Act. CA-00013889-005: It is a matter of fact that the respondent was not able to pay the complainant at the time the employment relationship ceased. Furthermore, it was not able to state that he would be temporarily laid off. In his own evidence the director for the respondent stated that a new lad had been taken on last week (beginning of December 2017). Therefore, the position had become redundant at 17th of July 2017. CA-00013889-006: Whether the complainant was let go or not, circumstances outside of his control dictated the pace. In the circumstances he was entitled to consider his position redundant on the day other than the employer temporarily laid him off. That patently was not the arrangement between them. In such circumstances he was entitled to his statutory minimum notice. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
CA-00013889-003: The complaint is well founded. I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant his statutory entitlement to €541 (say five hundred and forty-one euro) gross and a further €700 (say seven hundred euro) net in compensation for breach of s.23 of the Act. CA-00013889-005: The complaint is well founded. I hereby award the complainant a statutory lump sum based on a start date of 5th of January 2015, termination date of 17th of July 2017 and gross weekly pay of €541. Such award made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts in the cognisable period. CA-00013889-006: The complaint is well founded and I hereby require that the respondent pay the complainant his entitlement to statutory minimum notice in the amount of €1082 (say one thousand and eighty-two euro). |
Dated: 27th August 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes