Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Plumber

A construction firm

Representatives

None

None

Act

Complaint 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-00015313-001

25/10/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00015313-002

25/10/2017

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

CA-00015314-001

25/10/2017

The complainant outlined that he was employed by the respondent as a plumber. He worked mainly in Dublin but also worked everywhere. He was out sick following an operation. He received a phone call from the respondent to say it was scaling back and he was being let go. The complainant did not believe this as there was a lot of work on and a lot more work coming up. He described it as “a bit funny” the way it went on. He started on the 1st November 2016 and went out sick on 21st July 2017. He received the phone call on the 2nd August 2017. The P45 says he finished up on the 28th July 2017.

The respondent told the complainant that he would get a week’s notice. He was not able to find alternative employment as he had to go back to hospital. He was paid the weeks’ notice on the 4th August 2017 but he did not receive a pay slip. He only received two days’ notice and had expected a week’s notice.

The complainant said that he was owed 4.25 days’ annual leave; an amount €467. He stated that after three months, an employee should receive a contract but he did not get one. He said that he calculated the annual leave according to the number of weeks he worked. He was sure he worked on Monday 20th February 2017 as he had an order number for that day, where he travelled to a named facility. He had been on two days of annual leave the previous week and returned to work.

The complainant said to the respondent a month in advance that he was scheduled for an operation. The recovery was worse than expected and he needed five weeks to recover. There was no problem with the respondent. In respect of the contract presented at the adjudication by the respondent, the complainant said he had never seen this document before and was not asked to sign a contract. He said that the respondent paid him a week’s notice and for the week before, but they did not pay him the annual leave.

The respondent said that the amount paid was pay or minimum notice. The complainant’s ended on the 28th July 2017 meaning his annual leave entitlement was 11.6 days. It was not correct to include annual leave accrued over the notice week. The 11.6 days arise from the period of the 1st January to the 28th July. He took nine of those days before the period of sick leave, leaving three days holiday available. The respondent continued to pay the complainant over his sick leave, the weeks of the 21st and 28th July as well as the week in lieu of the 4th August 2017. The respondent had included the three days owing of annual leave and overpaid the complainant the rest. The P45 was issued on the 28th July 2017. The respondent completed the P45 in advance and the complainant was not contactable on sick leave.

The respondent outlined that all their staff were offered contracts and it is for them to sign them. They have 25 staff and all have the chance to sign the contract. The respondent made the contracts available through a payroll provider and there is a digital version on the computer. The respondent submitted that the week of the 4th August was the lieu week. It paid the complainant for two full weeks, and this included an overpayment of three days. It was not clear whether the complainant worked a back week. In respect of the 20th February 2017, the respondent said that it had a note that the complainant worked on that day. Even if he has that day, it still overpaid him by one day.

The complainant began working for the respondent on the 1st November 2016. His date of dismissal is in dispute. Having considered the evidence, I find that the complainant was given one week’s notice in the phone call made to him by the respondent on the 2nd August 2017. His employment terminated a week later. It follows that the complainant is entitled to redress of one weeks’ pay pursuant to Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act. This is an amount of €640.

The respondent has not been able to adduce sufficient evidence that it provided a statement of terms of employment signed by the employer. This complaint is well founded and I award the equivalent of three weeks’ wages, the amount of €1,920.

I find that the complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act is not well founded as the complainant was paid the outstanding annual leave owed to him.

CA-00015313-001

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €1,920.

CA-00015313-002

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €640.

CA-00015314-001

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act is not well founded.

Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act

Organisation of Working Time Act