ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Correction Order issued pursuant to Section 39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision issued on 23 August 2018 and should be read in conjunction that Decision.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012245
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Restaurant |
Representatives | Paul Hardy SIPTU |
|
Complaint(s):
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-00016260-001 | 11/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00016260-002 | 11/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00016260-003 | 11/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andfollowing 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 as a General Manager in the Respondent’s restaurant from 14 July 2017 to 3 December 2017, on which date he was dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant brought three complaints under the following Acts: Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (CA-00016260-001), the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 (CA-00016260-002) and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (CA-00016260-003) At the outset of his submission, the Complainant stated that he contests his dismissal and the manner in which it took place. However, he further stated that as he had not sufficient service to avail of the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, he was confined to making his case under the above-mentioned Acts. The Complainant then proceeded to provide his evidence in relation to the above complaints is as follows: CA-00016260-001 The Complainant stated that he was never provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment, as set out in Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s failure in this regard was blatant, substantial and had a direct adverse effect on him. Consequently, the Complainant contends that the maximum amount of compensation should be awarded. CA-00016260-002 The Complainant stated that he was summarily dismissed on 3 December 2017. The Complainant further states that, on the termination of his employment, he received no notice or pay in lieu thereof. Consequently, the Complainant is seeking an amount of one week’s salary, in line with his entitlement under Section 4 (2) (a) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. CA-00016260-003 The Complainant stated that on the day of his dismissal, 3 December 2017, he attended for his normal eight-hour work day at his regular starting time. The Complainant contends that he received no payment for this day either on or since his dismissal. Consequently, the Complainant is seeking redress, in the amount of one day’s pay, under Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint and did not attend on the day of the Hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of any response or appearance by the Respondent, I assessed the various complaints based on the uncontested evidence presented by the Complainant and his representative. Having carefully considered that evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s complaints under all three headings are well-founded and, therefore, I find in his favour. |
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.
CA-00016260-001 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €2,538.48 in compensation for the breach of Section 3 (1) of the 1994 Act. CA-00016260-002 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €634.62 (gross) for breach of Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act. This award is subject to the normal statutory deductions relating to pay. CA-00016260-003 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €126.92 (gross) for breach of Section 5 (6) of the Act. This award is subject to the normal statutory deductions relating to pay. *The calculation of the awards, as set out above, is based on a gross weekly pay of €634.62 for a 40-hour week, as per the Complainant’s complaint form. |
Dated: 23rd August 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Minimum notice and Terns of Employment Act 1973 Payment of Wages Act 1991 |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012245
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Restaurant |
Complaint(s):
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-00016260-001 | 11/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00016260-002 | 11/12/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00016260-003 | 11/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andfollowing 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 as a General Manager in the Respondent’s restaurant from 14 July 2017 to 3 December 2017, on which date he was dismissed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant brought three complaints under the following Acts: Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 (CA-00016260-001), the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 (CA-00016260-002) and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (CA-00016260-003) At the outset of his submission, the Complainant stated that he contests his dismissal and the manner in which it took place. However, he further stated that as he had not sufficient service to avail of the protection of the Unfair Dismissals Act, he was confined to making his case under the above-mentioned Acts. The Complainant then proceeded to provide his evidence in relation to the above complaints is as follows: CA-00016260-001 The Complainant stated that he was never provided with a statement of terms and conditions of employment, as set out in Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s failure in this regard was blatant, substantial and had a direct adverse effect on him. Consequently, the Complainant contends that the maximum amount of compensation should be awarded. CA-00016260-002 The Complainant stated that he was summarily dismissed on 3 December 2017. The Complainant further states that, on the termination of his employment, he received no notice or pay in lieu thereof. Consequently, the Complainant is seeking an amount of one week’s salary, in line with his entitlement under Section 4 (2) (a) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. CA-00016260-003 The Complainant stated that on the day of his dismissal, 3 December 2017, he attended for his normal eight-hour work day at his regular starting time. The Complainant contends that he received no payment for this day either on or since his dismissal. Consequently, the Complainant is seeking redress, in the amount of one day’s pay, under Section 5 (6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint and did not attend on the day of the Hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the absence of any response or appearance by the Respondent, I assessed the various complaints based on the uncontested evidence presented by the Complainant and his representative. Having carefully considered that evidence, I am satisfied the Complainant’s complaints under all three headings are well-founded and, therefore, I find in his favour. |
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.
CA-00016260-001 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €2,538.48 in compensation for the breach of Section 3 (1) of the 1994 Act. CA-00016260-002 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €634.62 (gross) for breach of Section 4 (2) (a) of the Act. This award is subject to the normal statutory deductions relating to pay. CA-00016260-003 I find in the Complainant’s favour and award him the sum of €126.92 (gross) for breach of Section 5 (6) of the Act. This award is subject to the normal statutory deductions relating to pay. *The calculation of the awards, as set out above, is based on a gross weekly pay of €634.62 for a 40-hour week, as per the Complainant’s complaint form. |
Dated: 23rd August 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Key Words:
Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 Minimum notice and Terns of Employment Act 1973 Payment of Wages Act 1991 |