ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012060

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Head Chef	A Golf Club

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00015561-001	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-002	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-003	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-004	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-005	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-006	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-007	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-008	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-009	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00015561-010	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005	CA-00015561-011	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-012	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-013	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977	CA-00015561-014	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00015561-015	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00015561-016	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-018	02/11/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00015561-019	02/11/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/03/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and 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 was employed from 5th May 2015 until the employment terminated on 18th October 2017. The Complainant was paid €35,000.00 per annum. The Complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 2nd November 2017 alleging the Respondent had breached Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Had breached Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Had breached the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 – and had been unfairly dismissed under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and a complaint under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 that he had been discriminated against.

The Following complaints were withdrawn at the Hearing –

CA-000155561-007 – CA-00015561-0011 – CA-00015561-013 – CA-00015561-015

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00015561-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – The Complainant confirmed he had been provided with a written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment signed and dated by both Parties on 3rd June 2015. The Complainant alleged that the name of the Respondent was incorrect – S.I. 49/1998 had not been complied with – the Terms says 20 days rather than 4 weeks annual leave and 3(g) and (ga) not included in the Contract and Staff Handbook not signed by the Respondent.

CA-00015561-002 Sunday Premium – Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. The period covered by this complaint is from 3rd May 2017 to 18th October 2017.

The Complainant stated that he worked 5 days each week and that he worked most Sundays but was not paid a Sunday Premium and there is no reference to Sunday Premium in his Contract of Employment.

CA-00015561 – 003. Section 17. Finish Times – OWTA 1997 – 2015. The Complainant stated that he was provided with his rostered start times but was never provided with a finish time in contravention of the Act.

CA-00015561 – 004 – Section 12 OWTA 1997 – 2015. The Complainant stated that he was advised of his entitlement to one 30-minute break but he asserted that he continued working while eating.

CA-00015561-005 – Section 13- OWTA 1997 -2015. Daily Rest. The Complainant stated that he did not receive his rest period of 34 hours where prior to April 2017 he worked 7 days a week.

CA-00015561 – 006 – Section 11 OWTA 197 – 2015. The Complainant stated that he frequently did not receive his 11-hour rest break each day and he stated there are no clock in, clock out records available.

CA-000015561 -0010 and CA-00015561 -0012. Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. The Complainant stated that he had lodged a complaint with the Respondent in relation to working in excess of 48 hours a week. He alleges that he was penalised by the Respondent first in seeking to put him through a Disciplinary process and a second complaint that he was penalised by the Respondent by dismissing him.

CA-00015561 – 014. Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015. The Complainant confirmed to the Hearing that he had signed a resignation letter to the Respondent resigning from his position. He stated that he was not represented at the meeting where he was the subject of a Disciplinary Hearing. He stated that effectively he was given three options, resign, be disciplined or be dismissed. The Complainant confirmed at the Hearing that he did not appeal if he considered this was not a valid resignation but rather a dismissal.

CA-00015561 -016. Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The Complainant is seeking payment of his minimum notice entitlements.

CA-00015561=-018. Section 21 OWTA 1977 – 2015. The Complainant stated that he was entitled to payment of Public Holiday entitlements during his Minimum Notice period

CA-0015561 -019 Section 23 OWTA 1977 – 2015. The Complainant is claiming payment of accrued annual leave due to him during the notice period and not paid to him on termination of the employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated the business is a Golf Club and the Complainant was employed as Head Chef. The activities in the Club are seasonal with much shorter hours in Winter months. The Respondent operates a form of annualised hours for employees, so as to avoid short-time working.

Employees work longer hours in the summer months and shorter hours in the winter months and they maintain their pay throughout the year and this has been accepted by all the employees for a number of years. – The Complainant confirmed this at the Hearing.

CA-00015561 -001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Respondent stated that the Respondent’s name is clearly shown on the top of all three pages of the Contract of Employment while acknowledging that a longer version does appear at the bottom of each page. S.I. 49/1998 is fully explained on Page 15 and 16 of the Handbook which the Complainant received. The Complainant’s hours of work are shown where it states that the hours will be shown on a roster each week. The Complainant’s annual leave entitlements are set out and Section 3(g) is set out in the Contract.

CA-00015561 – 002. Sunday Premium OWTA 1977 – 2015. The Respondent stated that the Complainant worked 34 Sundays in the last twelve months of his employment and that his annual salary reflected payment for working on Sundays which is one of the busiest days of the week and that the Complainant worked 5 days each week.

CA-00015561 – 003. Section 17 OWTA 1977 – 2015 Finish Times. Rosters were produced on a weekly basis and it was the Complainant who drew up the roster for submission to the Manager. Start Times were always identified but the nature of the business, being a Golf Club with a Restaurant, it was impossible to provide a finish time. There were three chefs, including the Complainant. The Restaurant closed between 6 and 7pm week days and 8pm at weekends depending on the number of customers seeking a meal.

CA-00015561 – 004 – Section 12 – Breaks. The Respondent stated that the Complainant was well aware of his rights under the Act as this was set out in the Employee Handbook which the Complainant clearly acknowledged he had received. The Employee Handbook also provides for the use of VT/CCTV data in support of any Disciplinary action that may arise. The Respondent stated that they had retrieved CCTV footage of 11 consecutive working days just before the employment ended and this shows that the Complainant had clocked working time of 85 hours and 54 minutes and that he took 76 breaks, one break for every 68 clocked working minutes – evidence produced at the Hearing. The Respondent also stated that the Complainant ate his lunch and/or dinner and this was consumed in either the kitchen or the restaurant as he chooses and this is not recorded as a break and is additional to the breaks shown at the Hearing. The Complainant was also the Head Chef and he managed his own time and the structure of his rest breaks and as a smoker he took far more breaks than he was entitled to.

CA-00015561-005 Section 13 – Weekly working over 7 days. The Respondent stated that between 16th October 2016 and 15th October 2017 the Complainant worked 230 days, which is 52 weeks/260 days less 20 days annual leave and 9 Public Holidays. Therefore, he worked 230 days across 46 weeks and one day which averages 5 days per week over the year with on average two days off each week. The Respondent presented a graph that shows the average number of consecutive days worked was 3.2 days with two periods where he worked 10 consecutive days when one of the chefs left without notice in the middle of the high season.

CA-00015561-006. Daily Rest of 11 hours. The Respondent stated that in the last 6 months of his employment they had identified 4 occasions when the Complainant did not have the full 11 hours between shifts.

CA-00015561-008 and 009 – 48-hour maximum working week OWTA. Section 15. The Respondent provided records of clocked hours for a 12-month period with no deductions made for unpaid rest breaks. In the 6 months prior to the termination of the employment this shows the Complainant worked on average 45.54 hours and in the 12 months shows an average working week of 39.38 hours worked.

CA-00015561—010 and 012 – Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. The Complainant was not disciplined or dismissed from his employment. He resigned from his employment. Also, the Complainant never made any complaint to the Respondent concerning any breach of Section 15 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015 and no evidence has been provided to support the Complainant’s contention.

CA-00015561 -014 Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015. It had come to the attention of Management by way of a CCTV recording, where it appeared that the Complainant had removed company property without permission. He was informed of this and invited to attend a meeting on 18th October 2017 at which he was to be informed that the Respondent would be conducting an investigation. They invited a friend of the Complainant to also attend. He was informed of the matter and he was asked if he was aware of any stock missing from the kitchen – no accusation was made against the Complainant at this meeting. The Complainant became upset and confirmed he had taken stock from the kitchen and had not paid for them. He stated at this meeting that he would prefer to resign rather than be subjected to an investigation. Management left the meeting. The Complainant was in discussion with his friend and during this time the MD of the Company went into the meeting with a prepared resignation letter if that was the wish of the Complainant. He was not requested to sign this letter and the MD left. The Complainant decided to resign and submitted the resignation letter.

The Complainant had provided a handwritten letter with the Complaint Form submitted to the WRC in which he confirms that he had ordered a case of sweet corn for personal purpose and at the end of a day in September he had taken 4 can of sweet corn for going fishing.

The Respondent also stated that the Complainant did have a right of appeal if he considered he had been dismissed and they noted that just 14 days elapsed between the Complainant resigning and the receipt of the complaints by the WRC. So, neither the Complainant or his Solicitor sought fit to lodge an appeal if his Solicitor was of the view then that he had resigned under duress.

The Respondent also stated they were aware the Complainant had commenced employment with another named Club within two weeks of his resignation as the Respondent had been asked as to the suitability of the Complainant for the position. The Respondent did not identify the issue to the new Employer.

CA-00015561-016. Minimum Notice. The Complainant resigned his position and does not therefore have a right to payment of minimum notice.

CA-00015561-018 OWTA Section 21 – Public Holidays. The Complainant had worked the necessary hours in the 5 weeks prior to the October Public Holiday but is not entitled to Minimum Notice.

CA-00015561-019. OWTA – Section 23 – Annual Leave in Notice Period. The Complainant has no entitlement of payment of annual leave as he resigned.

Findings and Conclusions:

On the basis of the evidence, written submissions from both parties and questions from the Adjudication Officer at the Hearing, I find as follows –

CA-00015561-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 requires a complaint to be submitted within the period of 6 months of the alleged contravention of the Act. Section 41(8) does allow for an extension of time by a further six months. This complaint was referred to the WRC on 2nd November 2017. The Complainant was provided with a written statement of his Terms and Conditions of Employment signed and dated by the Respondent on 3rd June 2015 and acknowledged signed and dated by the Complainant on 3rd June 2015. I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

CA-00015561-002. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015 Section 14.

Section 14(1) of the Act provides as follows – “An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise being taken account of in the determination of his or pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required to work”…….. I note that the written statement of terms and conditions of employment provided to the Complainant in June 2015 states that his “Basic Rate of Pay: €35,000 gross per annum”. Hours of work are stated as “Monday to Friday: Varied and agreed by roster. Saturday-Sunday Varied and agreed by roster. Your Manager will produce a rota in advance of all working hours. Hours of work will be varied in conjunction with the needs of the business”. The Labour Court in decision DWT 89/2014 Viking Security Ltd v Wlodarczyk found that mere assertions that the Complainant’s obligation to work on a Sunday was taken into account in determining his rate of pay cannot be taken on its own as evidence of complying with this section of the Act. On the basis of the evidence submitted by the Respondent in relation to hours and days worked in the reference period covered by this complaint from 3rd May 2017 to 18th October 2017 the Complainant worked a total of eight Sundays. I find that the Respondent has breached Section 14 of the Act.

CA-00015561-003. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 17

Section 17(2) of the Act provides as follows – “ If the hours for which an employee is required to work for his or her employer in a week include such hours as the employer may from time to time decide…the employer shall notify the employee…at least 24 hours before the first day or as the case may be ,the day in that week on which he or she proposes to require the employee to work all or as the case may be, any of the additional hours, of the times at which the employee will be required to start and finish working the additional hours on each day, or the day or days concerned in that week”. The evidence was that rosters are produced on a weekly basis by the Complainant as Head Chef. Start Times were always provided but the nature of the business, being a Golf Club with a Restaurant, it was not possible to provide finish times. I also note that during slack season the Complainant was paid his monthly salary regardless of hours actually worked while in the high season finish times was determined by the number of customers seeking a meal. I find there was no breach of Section 17 of the Act.

CA-00015561-004. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 12.

Section 12 of the Act provides as follows – (1) “An employer shall not require an employee to work more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of a least 15 minutes. (2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes, such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1)”.

The Complainant was aware of his legal entitlements as per the Act as this was set out in the Employee Handbook provided to the Complainant which he acknowledged he received on 3rd June 2015. I note that both Parties confirmed at the Hearing that the Complainant ate his lunch and/or dinner each working day at either the Kitchen or the Restaurant and that this was not counted as a break and is additional to the breaks the Complainant took while at work. Both Parties also confirmed that the Complainant was a smoker and that he took regular smoke breaks which are not recorded as breaks. Both Parties also confirmed that as Head Chef he was responsible for organising his own breaks. I find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-005. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 13

Weekly rest periods under this section provides “an employee shall, in each per of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours…..shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period”. On the basis of the evidence presented to me by the Respondent – The Complainant did not provide any evidence to support their complaint- I find that in the 6 months prior to the termination of the employment the Complainant worked 8 consecutive days once and he worked 10 days consecutively on two occasions. I find the Respondent has breached Section 13 of the Act

CA-00015561-006. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 11

Section 11 of the Act provides that “an employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer”. I have examined the evidence presented to me and find that the Respondent Breached Section 11 of the Act on 29th September 2017 – 22nd September 2017 – 16th September 2017 – 28th June 2017 – 22nd June 2017 – 24th May 2017 – 20th May 2017 - Within the period covered by this complaint which is from 3rd May 2017 to 18th October 2017.

CA-00015561-007. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 11.

This complaint relates to an extension of time sought. The Complainant’s Representative argued that the Complainant was ignorant of the law. Justice Laffoy in High Court Decision IEHC 145 of 11th May 2006 has held that ignorance of the law cannot be accepted in granting an extension of time. I find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-008. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 15.

Section 15 of the Act provides – “An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of seven days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a reference period) that does not exceed (a) 4 months”. Therefore, in the previous 4 months prior to the termination of the employment the evidence provided was that the Complainant worked on average 45.54 hours a week and that excluded breaks. I find this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-009. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 15

This complaint concerns an extension of time. As already decided the Decision of Justice Laffoy in the High Court Case, referenced above, found that ignorance of the law was not an excuse for a delay in lodging a complaint. I further note that the Complainant stated in his complaint referring to an alleged Unfair Dismissal that his employment was terminated because he had lodged complaints on unspecified dates concerning his hours of work.

CA-00015561-012. Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005. Section 28.

On the basis of the evidence at the Hearing and questioning by the Adjudication Officer there was no evidence presented by the Complainant either by way of submission or oral evidence as to when the Complainant had complained to his Employer concerning working in excess of 48 hours a week. The evidence presented both prior to the Hearing and at the Hearing was the Complainant did not in fact work in excess of 48 hours a week. I find this complaint is not well founded as there was no evidence presented by the Complainant or his Representative to support the complaint of excessive working hours having been made to the Respondent and I have also found that the Complainant did not work in excess of 48 hours a week.

CA-00015561-014. Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – 2015.

Section 1(1) of the Act provides as follows – “Dismissal in relation to an employee means – (a) the termination by his or her employer of the employee’s contract of employment with the employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employee (b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer………….” Section 1(1)(b) is not relevant to this complaint as the Complainant is not claiming constructive dismissal. Neither is Section 1(1)(c) relevant to this complaint.

The established facts in relation to this complaint are – both Parties confirmed that the Complainant had removed company stock from the premises of the Respondent without permission. He was invited to attend a meeting on 18th October 2017 during which he was informed of the CCTV recording of the incident and where he was informed there would be an investigation. During the course of this meeting a number of options were considered following which the Complainant confirmed his intention to resign from the Company and he submitted a formal letter of resignation dated 18th October 2017 in which he states as follows – “Due to personal reasons I am writing to you to formally resign from my position as Head Chef….with immediate effect.”.

The Complainant confirmed that he had sought legal advice and I note that there were 14 days between the resignation letter of 18th October 2017 and the lodging of the complaints with the WRC on 2nd November 2017. I also note that the Legal Representative of the Complainant did not advice the Complainant to appeal his resignation if he felt he had been pressurised to resign.

The Labour Court in a recent Decision UD/17/121 – Determination NO. UDD189 Boots Retail (Ireland) Limited and Jacqueline Doyle found “That an employee has been dismissed is a jurisdictional requirement under the Unfair Dismissals Acts……..Before the Court can examine the fairness or unfairness of dismissal, it must be satisfied that the Complainant employee has beendismissed in accordance with the Act”. I have found that the Complainant has not discharged the burden of establishing that he has been dismissed. I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-016. Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

The Complainant resigned his position therefore he has no entitlement to payment of minimum notice. I do not find in favour of the complaint.

CA-00015561-018. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997-2015. Section 21.

This complaint concerns a claim for accrued Public Holidays, being the October Public Holiday, during his Notice Period. I do not find in favour of the Complainant as I have found he was not entitled to payment of Minimum Notice.

CA-000155621-019. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – 2015. Section 23

This complaint relates to accrued annual leave during the Notice Period. As I have already found the Complainant is not entitled to payment of Minimum Notice I find this complaint is not well founded.

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-00015561-001 Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

In accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it does not comply with Section 41(6) of the Act.

CA-00015561-002. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Section 14

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare this complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1000.00 within 42 days of the date of this Decision.

CA-00015561-003. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Section 17

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-004. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 12.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-005. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 13.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1000.00 within 42 days of the date of this Decision.

CA-00015561-006. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 11.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is well founded. The Respondent breached this Section of the Act on seven different occasions as set out above in my Findings. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1000.00 within 42 days of the date of this Decision.

CA-00015561-007. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 11.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it does not comply with Section 41(6) of the Act of 2015.

CA-00015561-008. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 15.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-009. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 15.

CA-00015561-010 - 012. Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005 – Section 28

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare these complaints are not well founded.

CA-00015561-014. Unfair Dismissals Act.1977.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, I declare this complaint is not well founded as the Complainant has not shown that he was dismissed.

CA-00015561-016. Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-018. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 21.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00015561-019. Organisation of Working Time Act,1997 – Section 23.

On the basis of the evidence, my findings above and in accordance with Section 41(5) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I declare this complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 3rd August 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin

Key Words:

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Section 41(6) applies

OWTA – 12 separate complaints in relation to Sections 11,12,13,14,15,19 and 21 – Breaches of Sections 14 -13 – 11 found and compensation of £3000.00 awarded.

Safety, Health and Welfare At Work Act, 2005 – complaint not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – dismissal not established – Labour Court Decision UD/17/121 relevant

Minimum Notice - no entitlement.