ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011481
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Sales Executive | Facility Products Supplier |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00015295-001 | 24/10/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/02/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 an Internal Sales Executive from 3rd August 2016 to 26thy May 2017. She was paid €1,916.66 per month. She has claimed that she is owed three weeks’ notice payment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
She stated that on 26th April 2017 she served one month’s notice of her intention to leave as per the requirements of her contract of employment. On 27th April difficulties arose with her immediate manager which resulted in both arguing for about an hour. That evening a senior manager sent her home and told her not to return and he would pay her the weeks’ notice that she is due. They paid her two days’ holidays and five days’ notice. She sought the payment of the full months’ notice, a balance of three weeks’ pay. The Respondent replied in writing that her contract provided for one week’s notice from the employer, she had received it and so is paid in full. She has argued that she gave one months’ notice as is required by her contract. They accepted this notice therefore there is an agreement. Had the Respondent given notice in the first place then they would be required to give one week’s notice. They did not give counter notice. Therefore, she is entitled to the balance of the months’ notice amounting three weeks’ pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. They wrote to the Workplace Relations Commission on 23rd November 2017 to advise that on 27th April 2017 she attended at work but refused to carry out her normal duties, was verbally abusive and stated that she was unwilling to do any work. They paid her one week’s notice and two days’ holiday pay. The contract of employment provided for one weeks’ notice. The claim is rejected. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the contract of employment provides “Notice of termination to be given by the Employer” is 1 week for the Complainant’s service. I note that “Notice of termination to be given by the Employee” is 1 month for the Complainant’s service. I note that in this case it was the Complainant that gave notice and complied with the requirements of the contract by giving one month’s notice. I note that the Respondent accepted the notice. I find that the Respondent subsequently told the Complainant that she was not required to work the notice and paid her one week’s pay in lieu of notice. I find that as this is a complaint taken under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act the notice to be given is determined by this Act. So, based on Sec 4 of this Act the notice the Employer is obliged to give is one week. I find that the Respondent has complied with the provisions of this Act. |
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 this claim should fail.
|
Dated: 21 May 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Minimum Notice |