Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Manager

A City Centre Hotel

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-00013271-001

23/08/2017

The Complainant, a General Manager, commenced employment with the Respondent, a city centre hotel, on 19th February 2015. He was paid a gross weekly salary of €1,154.00. His employment ended on 10th August 2017 and a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, was lodged in the WRC on 23rd August 2017.

The Complainant provided a written submission.

The Complainant submits that he was a senior manager, whom the Respondent “inherited” with the business which changed ownership in January 2016, eleven months after he had been recruited.

There were tensions between the new management and the Complainant which intensified prior to termination of his employment under a “Compromise Agreement” signed on 27th July, 2017.

This agreement was propositioned without notice, and was, according to the Complainant, signed in questionable circumstances, which clearly did not include opportunity for the Complainant to avail of legal advice.

The agreement specified a termination date (August 10th, 2017) in line with his scheduled period of two weeks leave beginning the day after it was signed. However, the P45 issued to the Complainant erroneously records a cessation date of 30th July, 2017.

The Complainant put forward that the agreement states that the termination date was 10th August and that if the agreement had included the full annual leave then the end date would surely have been three weeks after the 10th August, 2017.

In the event payment, due in respect of the two-week period of scheduled leave, which was taken, and ending August 10th, was withheld.

The Complainant contends that the payment was withheld in direct response to testimony which the Complainant gave at a disciplinary hearing, to the displeasure of the Respondent.

The Complainant submits that payment solely in respect of one of the ten days (two weeks) due was made. A further nine days pay, equalling a sum of €2,077, is due.

In direct evidence the Complainant stated that he had accrued five week’s holidays but he had agreed to drop three of them; he believed that the other two weeks would be paid. He also stated that after his departure, he had contacted the CEO to get his outstanding holiday but was given short shrift.

The Complainant further argued that the agreement does not align with the argument that the two weeks should not be paid but does align with a payment being made for the two weeks. The Complainant also stated that he had been told by the Hotel’s CEO that he would receive two weeks’ holiday pay.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant was paid all that was due to him including two weeks’ notice pay due in the agreement.

The Respondent’s position was that the agreement signed by the Complainant included all outstanding holiday pay and therefore no holiday pay is due.

I believe the testimony of the Complainant when he says he was told by the CEO that he would be paid for two weeks accrued leave.  

It is also unlikely in my view that if the agreement had included the two weeks in question it would have shown an end date of three weeks after the 10th August 2017, so the agreement itself aligns with the Complainant’s position.

The fact that the Complainant contacted the CEO after he had left the hotel’s employment, to get the matter sorted out indicates a genuine belief on the part of the Complainant that he was due two week’s pay.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the Complainant is due nine day’s pay equalling €2,077.

I uphold the claim and award the Complainant €2,077.

Holiday pay, agreement