ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012119
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Assistant | Food Store |
Complaint:
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-00016003-001 | 26/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
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 employed as a Sales Assistant for over 13 years. On 31st January 2017, the owner sold the business and she continued to work in that store until it closed on 12th February 2018. She worked 18 hours per week and was paid €200.00. She has claimed that she is owed holiday for all of 2016 and January 2017. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
She has requested an extension to the time limit. She tried to engage with the Respondent but he continued to ignore her. Eventually she was advised by friends of the right to make a claim to Workplace Relations Commission. She did not get a written contract of employment and did not get a grievance procedure. She has claimed that she received no holidays or holiday pay for all of 2016 and January 2017. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find as follows: Extension to the time limit. I note that the Complainant made a concerted effort to contact the Respondent and he would not engage with her. I note that she did not get a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment including a grievance procedure. I find that such information, which she had a legal entitlement to would have been of benefit to her as she is a foreign national and not familiar with our employment legislation. I have decided to grant the extension to the time limit. The complaint was presented to the Commission on 26th November 2017 therefore the period that may be investigated is 27th November 2016 to 26th November 2017. Therefore, I have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint. I note that the holiday year operated in this business was January to December. However, this Act in Sec 2 (1)(b) defines the holiday year as “Leave year” means a year beginning on any 1st day of April”. Therefore, the leave year for investigation commences on 1st April 2016 to 31st January 2017. I accept the Complainant’s evidence that she did not get any holidays in that period. I find that the Respondent has breached this Act. I find that she is entitled to 10 month’s holidays amounting to 10 actual day’s pay, €666.66.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that the Respondent has breached Sec 19 of this Act.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €666.66 for the economic loss.
In addition I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €350 compensation for breach of her rights under this Act.
I require that these monies are paid within six weeks of the date of this decision.
|
Dated: 24/07/18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Holiday pay |