ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013959
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Healthcare Advisor | Retail pharmacy |
Representatives | Self | Aisling McDevitt IBEC |
Complaint:
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-00016376-001 | 18/12/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant was engaged by the Respondent since 2003. In November 2016 she went on sick leave and remained on sick leave until she retired. She gave evidence that the reason for her sick leave was on medical advice as a result of being bullied in the workplace. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that she was on social welfare and prescription medication from November 2016. Her evidence was that her grievance took an inordinate length of time to be dealt with. Her case was that she should have been offered a similar position to that which she held in another store during the grievance process. Her complaint was that had this been offered to her, she may have been available to work and wouldn’t have had the loss of wages that she incurred. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s case was that while the complaint was lodged on the 17th of December 2017 the cognisant period was that of six months before the lodgement date. Only contraventions which occurred between the 16th of June 2017 and the lodgement date could be considered. The Respondent’s case was that the Claimant’s case was misconceived. The Complainant was paid sixteen days sick pay and she did not dispute this. This is in line with her contractual entitlement. The Respondent contested the Complainant’s claim that she should have been paid in full for the duration of her illness i.e. in excess of her contractual entitlement. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Despite difficulties at times during the hearing to ascertain what sick pay the Complainant was paid due to the complexities of the Respondent’s records and payslips, I do accept that the Complainant was paid her sick pay as per the terms of her contract of employment. The Complainant did not provide any basis on which payment other than what was set out in her contract of employment should have been made to her during the cognisant period. The Complainant fails to establish that the wages which she claims were unlawfully deducted from her were properly payable to her while on sick leave. |
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.
The claim fails for the reasons set out above and in particular the fact that there was no deduction made as set out in the terms of the Payment of Wages Act. |
Dated: December 17th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Deduction. Sick leave. |