ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013383

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Cleaner	A Cleaning Company

Representatives

Self Represented

Emer O Callaghan Solicitor

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-00017456-001	15/02/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts	CA-00017456-002	15/02/2018
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00017456-003	15/02/2018

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/06/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following 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 Complainant lodged four claims against the Respondent. That 15 Euro was deducted illegally from his wages for overalls, that he was unfairly dismissed, that he was bullied and that he did not receive notice pay as per the Minimum Notice Act 1993 but as a Payment of Wages Act claim.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed as a Cleaning Assistant from November 27th 2017 to February 2nd 2018.

The Complainant was only given one weeks notice of termination of employment and he was not told why e was being left go.

The Company deducted money for overalls illegally.

He was bullied a work on a constant basis..

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent objected to the Hearing of the notice claim as the Complainant did not have thirteen weeks service as required by the Minimum Notice and terms of Employment Act.

The Respondent objected to the Hearing of the Industrial Relations cases as they had notified the WRC of their objection to the claim being heard under the Act and accordingly the Adjudicator did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim under the IR Act.

The Respondent denied any bullying took place and said the Complainant had no evidence to support this and outlined the difficulties they had with the Complainant at work and taking time away from work.

Decision/Recommedndation:

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 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

At the Hearing the Complainants cases were very difficult to get a sense of his grievances, despite attempting to give him individual time to explain them and some of the claims bordered on the frivolous and vexatious however I will deal with the issues he complained of.

With regard to the claim under the Payment of Wages Act (Ref no CA-00017456-001) the Complainants contract specifically provided for the deduction for clothing which he alleges was illegal. Indeed, the Complainant even states as much in his complainant form. Therefore the claim that an illegal deduction was made is not well founded. The Complainant was also employed for a total of approximately 9 weeks and he claimed he was due notice pay per the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1993 guidelines. However, that Act specifically states in Section 4 (1) that employees with less than thirteen weeks service are not covered by the Act (and that was not the Act under which the Complainant took his claim anyway) and the Complainant did not establish any legal right specifically under the Payment of Wages Act to a deduction of pay. Therefore, that claim is also not well founded.

With regard to the claims under the Industrial Relations Acts CA-00017456-002 and CA-00017456-003 the Company did object in writing to the WRC to the IR Hearings but it was outside the allowed timeframe. The Company did not wish to participate in the IR sessions but offered the view that the Complainant was a difficult employee and they terminated his employment due to this reason during his probation period. The also stated that the Complainant never took direction easily and was often missing from his post and he had to be closely monitored accordingly as he was not working out to their standards. They denied any bullying took place but that the Complainant did not take direction well. From and Industrial Relations perspective the Complainant has not shown any just cause for the Adjudicator to make a recommendation in his favour in the above two reference numbers (CA-00017456-002 and CA-00017456-003).

Dated: 1ST August 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien

Key Words:

Industrial Disputes