Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Accounts Manager

An Insurance Broker

Representatives

Lorna Crowther - Fingal Citizens Information Service

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00013267-001

23/08/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00013267-002

23/08/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00013267-003

23/08/2017

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

CA-00013267-004

23/08/2017

This complaint was heard on the 3rd April 2018.

The Complainant was employed as a Commercial Account Manager by the Respondent, an insurance brokerage, from the 20th October 2014 until his dismissal in July 2017. He has over 20 years’ experience in insurance broking and an excellent track record in that industry. His basic salary was €60,000 per annum, plus commission and expenses.

The Complainant had been successful in attracting new business and developing further business with existing clients. His expertise led to the firm winning a new client in May 2016, a commercial management company in Dublin’s IFSC, resulting in a sizeable increase in profits for his employer.

On the 24th January 2017 the Complainant met the Building Services Manager of the above client and amongst other things they discussed the issue of Circuit Court proceedings being brought by two former employees of the client. This issue is central to the proceedings that lead to the Complainant’s dismissal.

The following day the Complainant received an email with attachments from the Building Services Manager, including legal correspondence, in which he stated that he understood that the Complainant would notify their insurers of the issue of the Circuit Court proceedings and would revert to him when the insurers have considered the matter.

The Representative for the Complainant stated that he filed the email in error (he met another customer on the same day and filed the email in that folder by mistake). He then forgot to deal with the client’s request, or to bring the matter to the attention of his employer. This mistake was admitted in his email to his employer of the 2nd May 2017.   The Representative stated that her client was under pressure at that time as his mother in law was critically ill in intensive care (she died one month later).  

Separately, in an email of the 21st February 2017, the Complainant complained to the firm’s HR and Business Support Advisor in relation to the standard of administrative support he was being provided with and he requested a meeting with the owner to address several issues. He received no response and he alleges no action was taken.

On the 28th April 2017 the Complainant received an email from the HR and Business Support Advisor, referring to the Complainant’s meeting with the client on the 24th January 2017, requesting that he provide “all copies of emails in relation to the claim, copies of all correspondence with the solicitor in this matter and type up a log on all telephone conversations you’ve had on this matter”.

The Complainant responded on the 2nd May 2017 admitting that he had misfiled the client’s email and the matter then slipped his mind. In this correspondence he asked his employer how best to deal with the situation and that he would do whatever he could to assist.

On that date the Complainant alleges he was leaving the building to go to a client meeting when the Respondent approached him and aggressively swore and shouted at him. He was told to cancel his client meeting and return to his office. He alleges that other staff members could hear this confrontation through the open windows of the office.

On the 16th May 2017 the Complainant attended an investigation meeting with his employer and the Office Manager present. Although he was advised that he could have a representative present, he states that he was not made aware of the serious nature of the meeting and how it might affect his future employment with the Company.

The Complainant stated he was asked to provide a detailed report on the issue in contention. Additionally, he was required to provide a detailed analysis of his email filing system, to prepare a business plan, to keep a daily log of his work, to return his work laptop, to refrain from working at home, to refer all new business to his employer and to ask for the Respondent’s permission before quoting for new business.

The Complainant also alleges that at this meeting the Respondent told him that he leaves the office daily at 4pm with files, his employer does not know where he is going and for what purpose he is taking files with him, accusations the Complainant denied. Minutes of this meeting were produced which the Complainant refused to sign as he believed they did not accurately reflect the discussion that took place (the minutes of this meeting were attached in the Complainant’s written submission as was a letter from the Respondent, dated the same day, 16th May 2017).

On the 19th May 2017 the Complainant arranged to meet the firm’s HR Advisor to discuss the incident in the car park (for which he had received no apology). They met in a local coffee shop (for privacy), having requested her permission to do so. However, the meeting was interrupted by a phone call from the Respondent to the HR Advisor and the Complainant contends when he returned to the office he was spoken to in an intimidating manner.

On the 31st May the Complainant sent a detailed email responding to the issues raised in the Respondent’s letter of the 16th May. He also referred to the stress he was under prior to and since his mother in law’s death and the pressure upon him to increase premium income (without the administrative support he needed), stating that he is unable to achieve his potential as things are.

On the 7th June at a meeting described as a progress meeting the Complainant apologised for misfiling the email and he accepted that he had moved other emails from the same client into a correspondence folder with a view to dealing with them later. At this meeting he raised his concerns about the lack of support being provided to him and how it was affecting his ability to properly manage his clients.

On the 13th June the Complainant received a detailed summary of the meeting of the 7th June and he responded on the 20th June, including references to his remuneration and unpaid commission/bonuses.   The Complainant went on annual leave (in a stressed state of mind) on 23rd June 2017 and was certified sick on his return from holidays in early July.

Subsequently, the Complainant contacted his local Citizens Information Service (CIS) office for advice. They wrote to the Respondent on the 14th July 2017 outlining the employment issues that had arisen between the Complainant and his employer, including the fact that the Complainant was absent from work on certified sick leave due to work related stress.

The CIS advised the Respondent that there was no outcome to an apparent disciplinary process that started two months earlier, no actions were taken in response to work related grievances raised by the Complainant, the Respondent was refusing to pay performance commissions and work-related expenses due to the Complainant and a data access request was made. The correspondence concluded by stating that the work environment was such that the Complainant could not return to work unless remedial measures are taken and they intended referring the matter to the WRC’s mediation service.

The Respondent did not reply to this letter.

On 19th July a position was advertised internally for a Senior Broker and the Complainant believed that this was his role.

The Complainant received a letter from the Respondent dated 26th July 2017, informing him that he had exceeded his paid sick leave entitlement, that medical certificates must be issued weekly and requesting that original copies of the medical certificates be submitted (not email copies), as per the Staff Handbook.

In a letter (by Registered Post) from the Respondent to the Complainant, dated the 28th July 2017, the Complainant was dismissed. The reason given was gross misconduct, principally the mishandling of the IFSC client account. It also included reference to his right to appeal, in accordance with the staff handbook (with the relevant extract included).

On the 7th August 2017 the CIS wrote to the Respondent stating their intention to appeal the decision to dismiss the Complainant.   This letter included a detailed summary of all events leading to the dismissal and requested that the appeal be heard by an independent party.

On the 23rd August 2017, in a detailed response, the Respondent set out a summary of the issues including the investigation meetings held and possible disciplinary actions, the disclosure of some of the data requested, the rebuttal of several claims made by the Complainant and a refusal to grant an appeal as the CIS letter of 7th August 2017 included content that was “factually incorrect”.

In May 2016 the Complainant won new business with the management company at the centre of this case which was secured on a net basis (meaning that in first year there were no premium earnings).

On the 27th April 2017 the Respondent met the client to discuss risk improvements requirements for the policy renewal. They were assessed in March 2016 and in April 2017 the insurance company asked for an update. At this meeting the Building Services Manager for the client raised the matter of the proceedings being taken by former employees.   The Respondent was not aware of this issue but was advised by the client that the Complainant was fully informed.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s failure to manage this issue was a serious breach of company procedures. A protocol exists for dealing with client emails and the Complainant’s decision to create an email subfolder to effectively hide emails that were not being properly dealt with, his failure to respond to emails and the apparent hiding of information from other staff members, were serious breaches of this protocol.

When the Respondent subsequently sought a detailed report from the Complainant disclosing what had happened at his meeting with the Client on the 24th January 2017, he did not get a detailed response.

He contends that the Complainant would have been fully aware of the seriousness of his failure to properly manage this important client. His explanation that the matter had slipped his mind was unacceptable, especially so as the meeting on the 24th January was not a once off event but there were other emails relating to this client that were also misfiled and apparently not dealt with.

The Respondent stated that arising from the Complainant’s negligence his firm could lose the business with this important client and be sued for non-performance.

The Respondent referred to meeting the Complainant in the car park on the 2nd May 2017 and admitted voices were raised. He stated that the employee was leaving the office and was not engaging with a serious problem. He stated that Complainant had admitted to making a mistake but he did not believe him.

A meeting took place on the 16th May 2017. Following it, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant advising him that he was to be based in the office full-time, any business calls or visits were to be notified to the Respondent, his work laptop was to be returned, he should keep a daily log be kept of all work, and any new business enquiries he received should be submitted to the Respondent on the day of the enquiry and he was to immediately deal with outstanding emails.   He also requested a copy of the Complainant’s business plan that had been asked for three months earlier, in February 2017. The Respondent also stated that contrary to the Complainant’s assertion about a lack of administrative support three people assisted him in managing his workload.

The minutes of the meeting of the 16th May were issued to the Complainant on the following day but he refused to sign them, as he disagreed with some of the issues raised and referred to, such as creating email subfolders to effectively hide emails on matters he had not dealt with. The Respondent also referred to the Complainant’s working hours, and the fact that he regularly left the office at 4pm and the Respondent did not know where he was.

The Respondent was on annual leave from the 19th May to the 31st May 2017.

A meeting took place on the 7th June 2017, attended by Complainant and Respondent and the Business Operations Manager. The minutes described it as a progress meeting “to outline and discuss the further investigations” into the handling of the client account and other work related issues. The Respondent referred to the minutes of this meeting and contended that the Complainant’s management of this account was completely unacceptable and he had failed to provide any proper explanation for his actions.

He referred to his instruction in writing to the Complainant on the 16th May and the inadequate explanation that was eventually offered.   He referred to the business plan that was eventually provided which he considered too brief. He referred to the number of emails in the Complainant’s in-box that were unanswered or were not being properly dealt with and other claims that had emerged going back 12 months that had not been properly managed by the Complainant. The respondent concluded that these and other factors meant that his trust in the Complainant was severely undermined and his position was untenable.

When questioned as to the precise reason for his decision to dismiss the Complainant the Respondent stated:

“Rightly or wrongly the reason for (Complainant’s name) dismissal for gross misconduct relates only to this case. I hang my hat on that. (Complainant’s firstname) handling or mishandling of this case was the reason for his dismissal for gross misconduct”.

Findings:

The Complainant contends that the incident that led to his dismissal for gross misconduct was a genuine mistake on his part and could not be considered a dismissible offence, and in the treatment leading to his dismissal he was not afforded the right to fair procedures or natural justice.

The Respondent’s belief is that the handling of the case which came to light in April 2017 and the explanation offered by the Complainant was so unacceptable as being tantamount to gross misconduct and a dismissal offence.

The detailed minute of the meeting of the 7th June 2017 includes the Respondent’s assertion that they were in an investigation process and he would now consider all matters in detail and decide what disciplinary action would be taken in accordance with the staff handbook, and that the Respondent would provide the Complainant with a letter in a weeks’ time on what action he proposes.

The minutes also refer to the Complainant’s assertion at this meeting that he is not being treated fairly and other staff who made mistakes were treated differently. It included the issue of his salary review, that he was paid basic salary only with no commission payments for the year to date. On this issue the Respondent stated that that matter would be dealt with separately and the Complainant’s concerns should be put in writing.

The Complainant was absent on certified sick leave from Monday 10th July 2017 onwards due to work related stress. Records provided at the hearing indicate that prior to this he was absent on sick leave for a total of 16 days between the 18th of April 2017 and the 12th of May 2017, of which 14 days were certified.

On the 14th July 2017 the CIS wrote to the Respondent stating that the absence would continue until the 1st of August 2017 and set out reasons why the Complainant could not return to work including the outstanding disciplinary investigation, going back to May 2017, with no outcome, which was a breach of natural justice/speedy resolution and the general principles set down in the S.I. 146/2000 Code of Practice.

The CIS correspondence also referred to the commission payments due to the Complainant and a Data Access Request was made. It concluded by referring to the Complainant’s absence due to work related stress and their wish to refer the matter to the WRC’s mediation service for intervention and assistance.

On the same date (14th July 2017) the Respondent wrote to the Complainant acknowledging the receipt of the sickness certificate and expressing his hope that the Complainant was beginning to feel better and if there was anything that he could do to assist with any work pressures, to let him know.

On the 28th July 2017 the Complainant wrote to the Respondent (Registered Post) informing him of his dismissal due to gross misconduct, with immediate effect. It stated that in accordance with the Staff Handbook, the Complainant has the right to appeal and included the relevant extract.

On the 7th August 2017 the CIS wrote to the Respondent stating that they wished to appeal the decision of dismissal for gross misconduct.   In a detailed letter, the CIS set out the background to the case that led to the Complainant’s dismissal, the breakdown in the working relationship between the two parties, the investigation process, the Complainant’s grievance and conclusions, including the fact that their previous correspondence seeking mediation on this matter had gone unanswered.

On the 23rd August 2017 the Respondent wrote to the CIS, referring to their correspondence of the 14th of July and the 9th August (actual date, 7th August).

Although the reply included a reference to the Data Access Request being invalid (as no €6.35 fee was submitted), the Respondent supplied and disclosed documents relating to the complainant including his contract of employment, the salary and commission structure agreement, emails and meeting notes.

In its conclusion the Respondent reiterated that he would not consider mediation. It set out what he believed to be discrepancies between the version of events set out in the previous correspondence from the CIS and “what we have on file” and that “other matters that have come to light in recent months that are a concern in relation to the Complainant’s professional handling of other customers”, stating that the Complainant’s actions/inactions amount to gross misconduct which is a dismissible offence under the terms of his employment. Finally, it stated that the request for an appeal cannot be considered based on the content of the letter dated 7th August, which is factually incorrect.

Separately, the Respondent stated that matters relating to expenses and commissions are being considered and he requested that the Company mobile phone be sent to their office by return.

Finally, it was established at the hearing that within days of his dismissal the Complainant took up a new position, as a Director with another insurance brokerage firm, on a basic salary of €33,800.

Conclusions:

Disciplinary issues can be difficult to deal with especially in environments where management and employees work closely on a day to day basis. For that reason, clearly understood grievance and disciplinary procedures help employers to manage the situation by ensuring that the process is standardised, while employees are aware of the procedures and know what to expect when involved in a disciplinary investigation. Also, when disciplinary issues arise, robust procedures help to remove ambiguity or accusations of unfair treatment.

It is accepted that in cases where allegations are made with serious consequences to an employees’ reputation and career prospects, it is essential that the procedures undertaken in the investigative and disciplinary stages are carried out with the utmost vigilance, care and fairness, especially when the onus of proof lies on the party making such allegations.

There is much case law dealing with the importance of adopting fair procedures and adhering to the principles of natural justice prior to taking any action against an employee.   In determining whether a dismissal is fair or unfair the Unfair Dismissal Acts have regard to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and the extent, if any, of the compliance or failure to comply with the provisions of the Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.

Employers must also ensure that they follow the principles of natural justice, which include that the employee is made fully aware of any allegation made against them, they are given the opportunity to reply, the right to representation throughout the process, the right to a full and objective investigation of the allegation and finally, the right of appeal.

While the steps in a disciplinary procedure are usually progressive, such as verbal and written warnings or a suspension, there are instances, such as gross misconduct, where more serious action, such as dismissal, is warranted.   The Respondent contends that the facts of this case fell into that category.

However, I find that in this case the procedures adopted by the Respondent were fundamentally flawed and a breach of the Complainant’s right to natural justice, especially so given the seriousness attached to the Complainant’s actions and the consequences arising from them.

I find the Respondent’s refusal to grant the request for an appeal to be damning, particularly as his correspondence terminating the Complainant’s employment specifically referred to this right.

Accordingly, I find that the claim for unfair dismissal is upheld.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. I am satisfied that the Complainant was unfairly dismissed and sustained remunerative losses as a result. The Complainant obtained alternative employment during what should have been his notice period. I am satisfied that he should be entitled for the approximate shortfall between what he was being paid in his new employment and what he was paid in his old employment for a 28-week period and I award €15,750.

This complaint was heard on the 1st of November 2018.

I stated to both parties that the Complainant’s claim in respect of expenses claimed does not fall within the definition of “wages” for the purposes of the Act and that the expenses which he alleges were due to him and not paid does not amount to an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act. Being satisfied that this claim cannot be upheld the claim was withdrawn.

The Complainant was employed as a Commercial Account Manager by the Respondent, an insurance brokerage, from the 20th October 2014 until his dismissal in July 2017. He submitted that his basic salary was €60,000 per annum. In addition, he was contractually entitled to a commission payment, subject to the achievement of targets, a calculation based on generation of new business customers (35%) and renewal retention customers (10%).

The Complainant provided documentation submitting that he received commission earnings of €19,140 in 2015 and an entitlement of €38,884 in 2016 (but with a total earnings cap of €95,000 in place his commission earnings were €35,000).

The Complainant contends that he is due commission for new business for a three-month period between 1st March 2017 and 31st May 2017 and the retention/renewal of customers for a six-month period, 1st March 2017 to the 31st August 2017. The Complainant asserts that the value of the commission due and not paid is €20,000.   However, he also submitted that in relation to the period March to May 2017 he was under tremendous stress from his employer and he cannot be certain if the figures in relation to the value of new business he brought in are completely accurate.

He also stated that whereas he was dismissed from his employment on the 27th July 2017, his claim for commission is up to and including the end of August 2017 (which would have been his notice period of one month).

The Complainant stated that Data Access Requests were made on the 14th July 2017 and the 6th October 2017 to the respondent seeking details on the commission payments outstanding.

The Complainant accepts that he received a payment from the Respondent of €9,995 (before tax and deductions) dated 27th September 2017, describing the payment as “bonus”.

The Respondent provided documents showing how the Complainant’s commission payments were structured, including that payments were to be made on a quarterly basis, with a reconciliation made at the end of the year when premiums had been paid.

He stated that the 12-month period used to calculate commission was December to November, with annual earnings capped at €35,000. A payment of €10,824 was made to the complainant in June 2017. As the Complainant only worked for 8 months of the qualifying year (from December 2016 to July 2017) the pro-rata cap he applied is €23,334 (8/12th of €35,000).

Therefore, a balance of €12,510 (€23,334 less €10,824) was due to the Complainant following the termination of his employment.

From this total the Respondent accepts that he made 3 deductions; one for €1,360 for an unauthorised mobile phone account opened by the Complainant, one for €535 for the cost of a new handset and one for €620, relating to a discount given by the Complainant that was not approved. This total, €2,515, was deducted from the €12,510 commission payment and a cheque for €9,995 was posted to the Complainant at the end of September 2017.    

The Complainant contends that it is unfair for the Respondent to use a pro-rata formula to calculate the commission due to him. He submits that an analysis of his earnings while in employment (up to the end of July) demonstrates that he would have comfortably met his annual commission targets well ahead of the year end (end November 2017). He acknowledged receipt of the June payment of €10,824 and the post termination payment of €9,995, but he contends that the latter payment should have been more in the order of €20,000 (a hypothetical total of €30,824).

The Complainant refuted the Respondent’s allegation that he authorised a new mobile phone contract, and the reasons offered by the Respondent for the other deductions of €535 and €620.

The Respondent submitted that he cannot deal in “what if” scenarios and that his formula for calculating the commission payment due to the Complainant was fair and reasonable.

He stated that he withheld €2,515 of the commission due as the Complainant had knowingly authorised a new mobile phone contract and made other decisions that resulted in costs accruing to his business.

The Law

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act provides for the following definition of “wages”.

“Wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including-

“(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of   employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice.”

Section 5 (1) of the Act provides:

“(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless—

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

(b) 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

(c) in the case of a deduction, the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it.”

Section 5(2) of the Act provides: —

“(2)   An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of—

(a) any act or omission of the employee, or

(b) any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment,

unless—

(i) the deduction is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term (whether express or implied and, if express, whether oral or in writing) of the contract of employment made between the employer and the employee, and

(ii) the deduction is of an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances (including the amount of the wages of the employee), and

(iii) before the time of the act or omission or the provision of the goods or services, the employee has been furnished with—

(I) in case the term referred to in subparagraph (i) is in writing, a copy thereof,

(II) in any other case, notice in writing of the existence and effect of the term, and

(iv) in case the deduction is in respect of an act or omission of the employee, the employee has been furnished, at least one week before the making of the deduction, with particulars in writing of the act or omission and the amount of the deduction, and

(v) in case the deduction is in respect of compensation for loss or damage sustained by the employer as a result of an act or omission of the employee, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the amount of the loss or the cost of the damage, and

(vi) in case the deduction is in respect of goods or services supplied or provided as aforesaid, the deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost to the employer of the goods or services, and

(vii) the deduction or, if the total amount payable to the employer by the employee in respect of the act or omission or the goods or services is to be so paid by means of more than one deduction from the wages of the employee, the first such deduction is made not later than 6 months after the act or omission becomes known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services.”

There are several issues in dispute between the parties including the quantum of commission earnings allegedly due to the Complainant.   Having regard to the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the following facts have been established:

The Complainant was entitled to commission earnings in a 12-month period, capped at €35,000, payable in regular intervals.

These intervals were intended to be quarterly but were not always paid as such.

The Complainant received commission payments of €10,824 in June 2017 and €9,995 in September 2017. The latter payment related to the period of time the Complainant was employment and did not include the one-month notice period that is disputed.

The Respondent withheld commission payment of €2,515 as he believed he was entitled to do so due to costs that accrued to his business because of unauthorized actions of the Complainant.

Based on the evidence I am satisfied that the formula used by the Respondent to calculate the commission entitlement due to the Complainant, an amount of €23,334, though by no means perfect, is acceptable in these circumstances.

I find that the commission payment comes within the definition of wages set out in the Act and that it was properly due and owing to the Complainant as part of his wages in connection within the material time of his complaint.

The remaining issue for decision is whether the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to the withholding €2,515 of the commission payment. Subsection (2) (a) of Section 5 of the Act provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee in respect of any act or omission of the employee unless all the conditions specified in subsection (2) are satisfied.

I am satisfied that the respondent cannot rely upon the provisions of Section 2 in relation to the deductions made from the commission payment as they failed to satisfy the conditions specified in the Act.   Furthermore, the Respondent failed to give notice, written or otherwise, to the Complainant of his intention to make deductions from the remaining commission due.

In the circumstances, I find that withholding some of the commission payment owed amounted to a deduction from the Complainant’s pay that was unlawful and accordingly, the shortfall of €2,515 in commission payment is properly due to him.  

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 find that contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages in relation to unpaid commission. In accordance with Section 6 of that Act, I direct that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €2,515. As this redress is in relation to remuneration, it constitutes income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.

This complaint was heard on the 3rd April 2018.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

I am satisfied that the terms of the Complainant’s contract allowed for a notice period of four weeks. As no notice was given or paid the Complainant is therefore entitled to €4,615 compensation in relation to the claim under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 to 2005.