Correction Order issued pursuant to Section 39 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1977. This Correction Order should be read in conjunction with the Decision issued on 19th July, 2018.

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010457

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014following 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 initially engaged in April 2008 by the Respondent as a consultant to run the Respondent’s Public House. In March 2010 the Complainant submitted that he became an employee and was appointed by the Respondent to manage the establishment. The Complainant maintains he was made redundant on 25th July 2017 while on sick leave when the establishment was shut down, and that he did not receive his redundancy entitlements. He was paid gross salary of €1,269.23 on a fortnightly basis.

The Complainant also submitted a number of complaints relating to his terms and conditions of employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has not paid him, and additionally the Complainant was paid less than the amount due to him. The Complainant maintained that he did not receive his pay on 5th June, the 26th June, the 10th July, and the 24th July 2017. He maintained he was due €2,110.76 net for each of these payments. He also maintained he was on sick leave during 2017 and he was entitled to €2,110.76 payment when on sick leave but he was not paid.

The Complainant submitted that on the week of 25th June 2017 he was instructed by the Respondent not to pay any creditors. He advised at this time he had taken his wages, but following the instructions he returned his wages. He therefore maintained he did not receive his fortnightly pay which was due to him on 25th June 2017.

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Complainant advised he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of his employment when the business ceased trading on 25th July 2017. He submitted that he was due €2,750 gross in lieu of notice due. This Complaint was also raised under CA-00013867-007 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant maintained he did not receive holiday/annual leave entitlements and that he has not been compensated for the loss of his annual leave entitlement upon leaving. He was not in a position to provide specific details of the leave he was not granted, and upon cross examination at the hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he would have taken annual leave during 2017.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 199 The Complainant maintained that he did not receive his terms and of employment in writing.

The Complainant submitted that when he first started with the Respondent he was initially engaged as a consultant, however in March 2010 he became a salaried employee of the business but that he did not receive any terms and conditions of his employment in writing that time.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         

The Complainant maintained that he was made redundant on 25th July 2017 when the business ceased trading, and this was the day his P 45 was issued. He submitted that he did not receive his statutory redundancy payments for his 7 years employment. The Complainant contended that when the bar was closed on 25th July 2017 all other employees were provided with wages, holiday pay, notice, and redundancy but that the Respondent has refused to pay the Complainant redundancy.

The Complainant submitted that he was put under pressure to resign where the Respondent had mentioned in correspondence to him that he had resigned. The Complainant maintained that he did not resign and he was on sick leave from 25th June 2017 due to the stress of running the business, and where remained on sick leave when the business was closed on 25 July 2017.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Complainant submitted that on his termination of employment on 25th July 2017 he did not receive his statutory minimum notice on the termination of his employment, or payment in lieu thereof.                        

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Respondent maintained that he was not in arrears regarding the payment of wages to the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted evidence from the payroll records which showed the payments made to the Complainant during 2017. The records show the Complainant received fortnightly payments and where these payments were at a lower rate during April 2017 due to the Complainant working fewer hours. The Respondent advised the pay record also shows that the last payment made to the Complainant was on 18th June 2017 and following that date the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not attend work due to sick leave.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to sick pay, and when he was paid a lower rate from March to May in 2017 when the Complainant had injured his hand and was only available for some work. Therefore, he was paid a less amount which reflected the hours he actually worked, and where this was in agreement with the Complainant at the time.

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant resigned of his own volition and he was not put under any pressure to resign. The Respondent the Respondent accordingly denies that the Complainant is entitled to any payment in lieu of notice. This response is also made to complaint CA-00013867-007 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was responsible for the rostering of all staff and for the granting and payment of annual leave for the staff. In that regard he advised that the Complainant had received his annual leave entitlements but despite many attempts the Complainant failed to provide specific details or a record of the leave taken. The Respondent submitted that as the Complainant was responsible for the rostering of staff and the granting of leave it was his responsibility to note and record any leave taken which he had not. The Respondent maintained the Complainant had taken leave during 2017 which was paid for.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent denied that he failed to provide the Complainant with his terms and conditions in writing. The Respondent submitted a contract that was provided to the Complainant on his appointment on 20th April 2008 after negotiation with the Complainant. The Respondent therefore maintained that the Complainant did receive written terms of his employment.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         

The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was not made redundant but that he had resigned his position on 25th June 2017 before the business ceased trading on 25th of July 2017. The Respondent therefore argued that the Complainant was not entitled to any statutory redundancy payments.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had resigned his position and therefore section 11 of the Minimum Notice In Terms Of Employment Act 1973 did not apply.

Findings and Conclusions:

The evidence presented indicates that the business was experiencing trading difficulties, particularly during 2017. Evidence provided also supports that discussions had taken place between the Respondent and the Complainant about possibilities of the Complainant taking over the business. However, these discussions did not lead to the transfer of the business to the Complainant.

It appears that during 2017 the Complainant had also intended to leave the business, describing his experiences as been stressful and where a series of emails between the parties indicate the challenges that existed. Evidence provided also supports that the Respondent had encouraged the Complainant to stay whilst matters were being resolved, and where it appeared the Respondent had referred to the Complainant resigning, but that the Complainant in the correspondence had not acknowledged he had resigned.

Evidence was presented showing a series of emails where the parties had been entering various discussions regarding the future of the business, and where the Respondent appeared to be having difficulties in getting information from the Complainant including the accounts and other matters relating to the performance of the business. It also appears attempts were made by the Respondent to seek the resignation of the Complainant in June 2017.

Overall, the history to this case demonstrates a breakdown in the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, who prior to these issues appear to have been close colleagues.

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wags Act 1991 states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

• the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

• the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

• in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.
  
  

• The matter regarding the payment of wages, and the payment in lieu of notice, are subject to dispute between the parties. From 17th March to early 6th May 2017 the Complainant had been absent on sick leave due to a broken hand and where he acknowledged he was unable to work his full duties during this period. The Complainant also maintained that during his sick leave he would have worked a minimum of 20 hours per week, and this work involved stock checks, weekly cash ups, dealing with suppliers, stock management and debtors, organising staff rosters, managing staff, handling daily cash flow, and organising an array of events.I am satisfied the Respondent did not have an arrangement to pay sick leave, and that a reduce wage was paid over this period which reflected the less hours worked by the Complainant.I therefore find that the Complainant was paid during March and April a lesser amount than his normal wage, and this was due to the fact that he did not work his full hours over this period. I therefore do not find that the Respondent is in breach of the Act during March and April.I find the Respondent did not have a sick pay policy and therefore there was no entitlement for the Complainant to receive sick pay. As the Complainant was absent from 25th June to 25th July 2017, when he was unfit to work, I find he was not entitled to receive payment.In light of the above I do not find the Respondent was in breach of Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. I therefore do not uphold this complaint. 

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991
This complaint refers to non-payment in lieu of notice when the Complainant’s job was terminated on 25th July 2017. As this complaint is also made under complaint -006 I make my findings to this complaint under -006 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997   

Section 19(1)(a) of the Organisation Of Working Time Act 1997 provides for an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave.

I am satisfied that the Complainant, as the manager for the establishment, was responsible for the rostering of staff and the recording of annual leave, including his own. At the hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he would have taken annual leave during 2017 but he was not in a position to provide specific details of the leave taken, or what leave was due to him. I therefore do not find that there was sufficient evidence provided by the Complainant to uphold this complaint.

I am satisfied that as the Complainant was in charge of the rostering of staff, and the granting and recording of leave. He would have availed of annual leave himself during 2017. Therefore, I do not find the Respondent is in breach of section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, and this complaint is not upheld.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that an employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing…particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment.     Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the Respondent did provide the Complainant with a contract in 2008. This contract is entitled Management Agreement, and sets out that the contract has a period of two years from the date of its issue in 2008. A review this contract places responsibilities and indemnities on the Complainant which on balance would not render it as a contract of employment, but rather more a business arrangement between the parties to operate the public house. I’m satisfied that this arrangement changed in around the end of March 2010, at which point the Complainant became an employee of the Respondent. Clearly he is recorded on the payroll with an employee name.As the Respondent failed to submit evidence that he provided written information to the Complainant of his terms of employment in March 2010, I find the Respondent is in breach of section 7 of the Terms Of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and I therefore uphold this complaint.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 

Section 7(2)(a) of the Actstates [A]n employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to…the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on a contract of employment with effect from March 2010, up to 25th July 2017. The was no evidence provided to support the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant had resigned. The Respondent ceased trading with the Public House on circa 25th July 2017 and where all other employees were made redundant.   The evidence also supports, as recorded on the payroll, that 25th July 20 17 was the date the Complainant left his employment. I therefore find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for 7 years and 4 months service.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 4 (c) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that an employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of five years or more, but less than ten years, provide four weeks’ notice.

I do not find there is substantive evidence to uphold that the Complainant resigned his position prior to 25th July 2017. I find the Complainant’s role was made redundant on the 25th July 2017 and where no evidence has been submitted that supports the Complainant was provided with notice of his termination prior to this date. I therefore find that the Complainant did not receive his statutory notice period and accordingly I find that the Respondent is in contravention of Section 4 of the Act.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to complaints 001 to 005 and 007. the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to complaint -006 in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

As I have found this complaint is not well founded I decide this complaint fails.

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

My decision of this complaint is made under complaint 006 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 As I have found this complaint is not well founded I decide this complaint fails.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

In accordance with Section 7 of the Act I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Respondent has failed to provide the Complainant with written terms of his conditions of employment. I therefore order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of two weeks earnings based on €634.62 per week.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

I have found the Complainant was made redundant.

The Complainants start date was 1st April 2010, and that he was made redundant on 25th July 2017, this being the date of the termination of his employment. He has 7.3 years’ service with the Respondent.

The Complainant rate of pay was €634.62 gross per week.

I hereby decide the Respondent is obliged to pay the Complainant his entitlement of 15.64 weeks redundancy payment. Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to a contravention of Section 4 of that Act. As I have found the Respondent is in Contravention of the Act and I direct that the Respondent pay to the employee compensation of four weeks’ pay, which represents his statutory notice, and amounts to €2,538.46.

Dated:   19th July, 2018.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

 ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

 Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010457

Parties: 

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967-2014following 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 initially engaged in April 2008 by the Respondent as a consultant to run the Respondent’s Public House. In March 2010 the Complainant submitted that he became an employee and was appointed by the Respondent to manage the establishment. The Complainant maintains he was made redundant on 25th July 2017 while on sick leave when the establishment was shut down, and that he did not receive his redundancy entitlements. He was paid gross salary of €1,269.23 on a fortnightly basis.

The Complainant also submitted a number of complaints relating to his terms and conditions of employment.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent has not paid him, and additionally the Complainant was paid less than the amount due to him. The Complainant maintained that he did not receive his pay on 5th June, the 26th June, the 10th July, and the 24th July 2017. He maintained he was due €2,110.76 net for each of these payments. He also maintained he was on sick leave during 2017 and he was entitled to €2,110.76 payment when on sick leave but he was not paid.

The Complainant submitted that on the week of 25th June 2017 he was instructed by the Respondent not to pay any creditors. He advised at this time he had taken his wages, but following the instructions he returned his wages. He therefore maintained he did not receive his fortnightly pay which was due to him on 25th June 2017.

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Complainant advised he did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of his employment when the business ceased trading on 25th July 2017. He submitted that he was due €2,750 gross in lieu of notice due. This Complaint was also raised under CA-00013867-007 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant maintained he did not receive holiday/annual leave entitlements and that he has not been compensated for the loss of his annual leave entitlement upon leaving. He was not in a position to provide specific details of the leave he was not granted, and upon cross examination at the hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he would have taken annual leave during 2017.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 199 The Complainant maintained that he did not receive his terms and of employment in writing.

The Complainant submitted that when he first started with the Respondent he was initially engaged as a consultant, however in March 2010 he became a salaried employee of the business but that he did not receive any terms and conditions of his employment in writing that time.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         

The Complainant maintained that he was made redundant on 25th July 2017 when the business ceased trading, and this was the day his P 45 was issued. He submitted that he did not receive his statutory redundancy payments for his 7 years employment. The Complainant contended that when the bar was closed on 25th July 2017 all other employees were provided with wages, holiday pay, notice, and redundancy but that the Respondent has refused to pay the Complainant redundancy.

The Complainant submitted that he was put under pressure to resign where the Respondent had mentioned in correspondence to him that he had resigned. The Complainant maintained that he did not resign and he was on sick leave from 25th June 2017 due to the stress of running the business, and where remained on sick leave when the business was closed on 25 July 2017.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Complainant submitted that on his termination of employment on 25th July 2017 he did not receive his statutory minimum notice on the termination of his employment, or payment in lieu thereof.                        

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Respondent maintained that he was not in arrears regarding the payment of wages to the Complainant.

The Respondent submitted evidence from the payroll records which showed the payments made to the Complainant during 2017. The records show the Complainant received fortnightly payments and where these payments were at a lower rate during April 2017 due to the Complainant working fewer hours. The Respondent advised the pay record also shows that the last payment made to the Complainant was on 18th June 2017 and following that date the Respondent submitted that the Complainant did not attend work due to sick leave.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was not entitled to sick pay, and when he was paid a lower rate from March to May in 2017 when the Complainant had injured his hand and was only available for some work. Therefore, he was paid a less amount which reflected the hours he actually worked, and where this was in agreement with the Complainant at the time.

CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant resigned of his own volition and he was not put under any pressure to resign. The Respondent the Respondent accordingly denies that the Complainant is entitled to any payment in lieu of notice. This response is also made to complaint CA-00013867-007 below.

CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was responsible for the rostering of all staff and for the granting and payment of annual leave for the staff. In that regard he advised that the Complainant had received his annual leave entitlements but despite many attempts the Complainant failed to provide specific details or a record of the leave taken. The Respondent submitted that as the Complainant was responsible for the rostering of staff and the granting of leave it was his responsibility to note and record any leave taken which he had not. The Respondent maintained the Complainant had taken leave during 2017 which was paid for.

CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent denied that he failed to provide the Complainant with his terms and conditions in writing. The Respondent submitted a contract that was provided to the Complainant on his appointment on 20th April 2008 after negotiation with the Complainant. The Respondent therefore maintained that the Complainant did receive written terms of his employment.

CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         

The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was not made redundant but that he had resigned his position on 25th June 2017 before the business ceased trading on 25th of July 2017. The Respondent therefore argued that the Complainant was not entitled to any statutory redundancy payments.

CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had resigned his position and therefore section 11 of the Minimum Notice In Terms Of Employment Act 1973 did not apply.

Findings and Conclusions:

The evidence presented indicates that the business was experiencing trading difficulties, particularly during 2017. Evidence provided also supports that discussions had taken place between the Respondent and the Complainant about possibilities of the Complainant taking over the business. However, these discussions did not lead to the transfer of the business to the Complainant.

It appears that during 2017 the Complainant had also intended to leave the business, describing his experiences as been stressful and where a series of emails between the parties indicate the challenges that existed. Evidence provided also supports that the Respondent had encouraged the Complainant to stay whilst matters were being resolved, and where it appeared the Respondent had referred to the Complainant resigning, but that the Complainant in the correspondence had not acknowledged he had resigned.

Evidence was presented showing a series of emails where the parties had been entering various discussions regarding the future of the business, and where the Respondent appeared to be having difficulties in getting information from the Complainant including the accounts and other matters relating to the performance of the business. It also appears attempts were made by the Respondent to seek the resignation of the Complainant in June 2017.

Overall, the history to this case demonstrates a breakdown in the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, who prior to these issues appear to have been close colleagues.

CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              

Section 5(1) of the Payment of Wags Act 1991 states that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

• the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute,

• the deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee's contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment, or

• in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.The matter regarding the payment of wages, and the payment in lieu of notice, are subject to dispute between the parties. From 17th March to early 6th May 2017 the Complainant had been absent on sick leave due to a broken hand and where he acknowledged he was unable to work his full duties during this period. The Complainant also maintained that during his sick leave he would have worked a minimum of 20 hours per week, and this work involved stock checks, weekly cash ups, dealing with suppliers, stock management and debtors, organising staff rosters, managing staff, handling daily cash flow, and organising an array of events.I am satisfied the Respondent did not have an arrangement to pay sick leave, and that a reduce wage was paid over this period which reflected the less hours worked by the Complainant.I therefore find that the Complainant was paid during March and April a lesser amount than his normal wage, and this was due to the fact that he did not work his full hours over this period. I therefore do not find that the Respondent is in breach of the Act during March and April.I find the Respondent did not have a sick pay policy and therefore there was no entitlement for the Complainant to receive sick pay. As the Complainant was absent from 25th June to 25th July 2017, when he was unfit to work, I find he was not entitled to receive payment.In light of the above I do not find the Respondent was in breach of Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. I therefore do not uphold this complaint. This complaint refers to non-payment in lieu of notice when the Complainant’s job was terminated on 25th July 2017. As this complaint is also made under complaint -006 I make my findings to this complaint under -006 below.CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997   CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 Section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that an employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing…particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment.     Having reviewed the evidence, I am satisfied that the Respondent did provide the Complainant with a contract in 2008. This contract is entitled Management Agreement, and sets out that the contract has a period of two years from the date of its issue in 2008. A review this contract places responsibilities and indemnities on the Complainant which on balance would not render it as a contract of employment, but rather more a business arrangement between the parties to operate the public house. I’m satisfied that this arrangement changed in around the end of March 2010, at which point the Complainant became an employee of the Respondent. Clearly he is recorded on the payroll with an employee name.As the Respondent failed to submit evidence that he provided written information to the Complainant of his terms of employment in March 2010, I find the Respondent is in breach of section 7 of the Terms Of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and I therefore uphold this complaint.,CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                           Section 4 (c) of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that an employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of five years or more, but less than ten years, provide four weeks’ notice.I do not find there is substantive evidence to uphold that the Complainant resigned his position prior to 25th July 2017. I find the Complainant’s role was made redundant on the 25th July 2017 and where no evidence has been submitted that supports the Complainant was provided with notice of his termination prior to this date. I therefore find that the Complainant did not receive his statutory notice period and accordingly I find that the Respondent is in contravention of Section 4 of the Act.Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to complaints 001 to 005 and 007. the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to complaint -006 in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.As I have found this complaint is not well founded I decide this complaint fails.CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              CA-00013867-003/004 Complaint Under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 As I have found this complaint is not well founded I decide this complaint fails.CA-00013867-005 Complaint Under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.The Complainants start date was 1st April 2010, and that he was made redundant on 25th July 2017, this being the date of the termination of his employment. He has 7.3 years’ service with the Respondent.I hereby decide the Respondent is obliged to pay the Complainant his entitlement of 15.64 weeks redundancy payment. Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the Complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973Dated:   19th July, 2018.Key Words:

1. Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney
2. Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to a contravention of Section 4 of that Act. As I have found the Respondent is in Contravention of the Act and I direct that the Respondent pay to the employee compensation of four weeks’ pay, which represents his statutory notice, and amounts to €2,538.46.
3.  
4. The Complainant rate of pay was €634.62 gross per week.
5. I have found the Complainant was made redundant.
6. CA-00013867-006 Complaint Under Section of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967                         
7. In accordance with Section 7 of the Act I find that the complaint is well founded and that the Respondent has failed to provide the Complainant with written terms of his conditions of employment. I therefore order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of two weeks earnings based on €1,269.23 per week.
8.                
9. My decision of this complaint is made under complaint 006 below.
10.  
11. CA-00013867-001 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991                              
12. Decision:
13.  
14. CA-00013867-007 Complaint Under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973                              
15. I am satisfied that the Complainant was on a contract of employment with effect from March 2010, up to 25th July 2017. The was no evidence provided to support the Respondent’s assertion that the Complainant had resigned. The Respondent ceased trading with the Public House on circa 25th July 2017 and where all other employees were made redundant.   The evidence also supports, as recorded on the payroll, that 25th July 20 17 was the date the Complainant left his employment. I therefore find that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment for 7 years and 4 months service.
16. Section 7(2)(a) of the Actstates [A]n employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concernedthe dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to…the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or.              
17. I am satisfied that as the Complainant was in charge of the rostering of staff, and the granting and recording of leave. He would have availed of annual leave himself during 2017. Therefore, I do not find the Respondent is in breach of section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, and this complaint is not upheld.
18. I am satisfied that the Complainant, as the manager for the establishment, was responsible for the rostering of staff and the recording of annual leave, including his own. At the hearing the Complainant acknowledged that he would have taken annual leave during 2017 but he was not in a position to provide specific details of the leave taken, or what leave was due to him. I therefore do not find that there was sufficient evidence provided by the Complainant to uphold this complaint.
19. Section 19(1)(a) of the Organisation Of Working Time Act 1997 provides for an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave.
20. CA-00013867-002 Complaint Under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991