Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Dog Groomer

Pet Food Distributor

Representatives

Jim Waters Waters & Associates Solicitors

Stafford solicitors Stafford & Company Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00006940-002

12/09/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00007490-002

05/10/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00007490-003

05/10/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00007490-004

05/10/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00007490-005

05/10/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00006940-001

12/09/2016

The Claimant has made multiple claims against the Respondent (see above).

The Claimant stated that she was employed by the   Respondent as a dog groomer from November 2015 until August 2016. She went on certified sick leave on 12 May 2016. This was due to health & safety concerns which in the context of her pregnancy. These concerns remained unaddressed since April 2016 when she first raised them and requested a risk assessment be carried out. The Claimant made a number of requests, both verbal and in writing expressing serious concerns about her working conditions and her duties as a dog groomer were putting her health and the health of her unborn baby at risk.

On 8 July 2016, the Respondent furnished an unsigned risk assessment dated 21 June 2016 (while failing to provide copies of prior risk assessment which it had illegally carried out prior to this). The Claimant following consultation with GP, advised the Respondent of her continuing concerns that the risks identified were not properly addressed and/or were not addressed in the context of her being pregnant (copies of correspondence provided) . With the unresolved health & safety concerns and additional work related stress that ensued, she resigned her position. She gave notice on 9 August effective as of 16 August.

She requested that the Respondent provide her with a letter certifying her last day as an employee and confirming that P45 would be issued in the next payroll. For the Respondent’s convenience, she provided them with a draft letter to this effect. Since then she and her representative have requested this of the Respondent a number of times be furnished without delay.

The Respondent was put on notice that Claimant could not avail of her Maternity Benefit payment until she submits her P45 to the Dept. of Social Protection. To date the Respondent has failed to comply with this request. This constitutes inappropriate and malicious treatment to which the Claimant has been subject to for many months. As a result of the Respondent’s inaction (i.e. deliberately delaying the provision of her P45 and letter of cessation of employment) she continues to have been suffering adverse treatment in regard to obtaining Maternity Benefit. The Respondent’s action constitutes penalisation under s 27(1) & (2) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 involving the imposition of financial penalties.

In regard to the Payment of Wages Act the Claimant did not receive her payslips for the periods 9 November 2015 to end of December 2015 and 16 April 2016 until 16 August 2016.

Under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Claimant stated that she did not receive her annual leave entitlement. Payments were not made in respect of accrued but untaken annual leave for the period between 9 November 2015 to 16 August 2016. There is a total of 15.447 days due amounting to €1,14307. There is also outstanding public holidays due for the same period of eight days amounting to €592.00.

The Claimant stated that she did not receive a written statement of her terms of employment in breach of s 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act.

The Respondent stated that the Claimant was initially self-employed from November to December 2016. However, the Claimant changed her mind and became an employee from January 2016. At that time the Respondent paid the tax that was due to cover the self-employed period.

The Respondent provided a copy of the risk assessment form draft on 21 June 2016. Initially the Claimant did not participate in the risk assessment being carried out at the time. It was further stated that when the Claimant gave notice of her pregnancy , the Respondent employed an assistant to help her with the lifting of big dogs.

On 10 May the Claimant’s partner who was then also an employee received a written warning. As a result the Claimant removed all her tools from the premises. The Respondent now believes that the issue of health & safety was a ruse on her behalf as she was going to leave anyway. The Respondent did accept that any penalisation as per the 2005 Act took place as the Claimant received her P45 and P60 in September 2016.

In regard to written terms of employment, the Claimant received these in a letter dated 29 January 2016 (copy Provided to the Hearing).

In a document presented to the Hearing it showed that the Claimant received 5.5 days holidays since January 2016. The stated that the Claimant had received all her holiday entitlements when she left. In a document presented at the Hearing it was claimed that her holidays were overpaid when she left.

Under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the Claimant worked less than 40m Hours per week and got her lunch breaks. Sometimes she finished early and usually only took one dog in the afternoon.

I have considered the submissions made by both parties. The claim is made that penalisation under s 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 took place. This was by way of not providing the Claimant’s P45 and other documentation for the claimant to claim Maternity Benefit. However, a letter dated 20 September 2016, contained in the Claimant’s and Respondent’s bundles of documents submitted to the Hearing shows that these documents and matter pertaining to taxation / entitlements are dealt with.

In regard to the matter of non-issuing of pay slips I do not have jurisdiction under the Payment of Wages Act in this matter, it is an issue the Workplace Relation Inspectorate.

In dealing with the matter of annual leave entitlement and public holidays this also was dealt with in the letter of 20 September 2016. Therefore I find the claim is resolved. However, in regard to the matter of rest breaks entitlement, the Respondent is required under the Organisation of Working Time Act to maintain records of these but none were produced to the Hearing. I therefore find the claims well founded and award the Claimant €300.00, €300.00 and €400.00 on each count.

In regard to the claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, the Claimant received a written statement of terms of employment in January 2016 when she changed from being self-employed to becoming an employee. I therefore do not find the claim well founded and it fails.