ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007230

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Robert Pirsz	Ryanair Designated Activity Company

5th October 2017

Representatives

Blazej Nowak, Monika Szarejks

Frank Beatty SC, Mark Kelly Solicitor of McDowell Purcell, Lisa McCormack, Leanne Morrissey, Kiera O’Brien Stenographer

12th June 2018

Representatives

Blazej Nowak, Monika Szarejks

Frank Beatty SC, Mark Kelly Solicitor of McDowell Purcell, Lisa McCormack + Stenographer

Peter Skuta Interpreter

Complaints:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00009698-002	13/02/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00009698-003	13/02/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00009698-004	13/02/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00009698-005	13/02/2017
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00009698-001	13/02/2017

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 5/10/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a Ground Handling Agent from 8th November 2008 to 6th March 2017. He was paid €2,490 per month. He has claimed that the Respondent has breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, The Organisation of Working Time Act and the Employment Equality Act.

1)Terms of Employment (Information) Act CA 9698 -001

This complaint was received on 13th February 2017

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s Representative stated that on 9th August 2016 the name of the Company changed from Limited to DAC. The Complainant was not notified of this change within one month of the change. This is a breach of Sec 5 of this Act.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent stated that this change took place as a result of a requirement of the Company’s Act 2014. This was posted on the noticeboard for all employees’ attention. Therefore Sec 5 does not apply.

Findings and Conclusions:

I find that the change to DAC was as a requirement of the Company’s Act 2014.

I note that this change was notified to employees via the noticeboard.

As this is an information Act I find that the employees were advised of the change.

I find that the Complainant did not personally receive written confirmation of this change.

I find that he was nevertheless notified via the noticeboard.

I find that this was at most a technical breach of the 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.

Therefore, as per Sec 7 (2) (c) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I require the Respondent to give the Complainant in writing a statement containing the reference to the legal entity being DAC.

This is to be done within six weeks of the date below.

2)Employment Equality Act CA 9698 -002

This claim was withdrawn at hearing 12th June 2018.

3) Organisation of Working Time Act CA 9698 -003/4/5

This complaint was received on 13th February 2017

Duplicates were received on 15th March 2017 following the termination of employment on 6th March 2017.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA 9698 -003

The Complainant has claimed a breach of Section 23 in respect of annual leave accrued on termination. He accepts that they were paid at termination but were not paid when due. The payment did not reflect the economic value of the Sunday premium.

CA 9698 -004

He has claimed a breach of Section 23 & 21 & 22 in respect of 17th March. He accepts that it was paid at termination but not paid when due. If the Public Holiday was added to holidays and paid at cessation then there is no basis for this claim.

CA 9698 -005

He has claimed a breach of Section 20 (Sec 19 was withdrawn) in respect of annual leave. He accepts that they were paid at termination but were not paid when due. The economic value of the Sunday premium was not taken into account.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA 9698 -003

The Respondent stated that all holiday pay was paid upon cessation of employment

CA 9698 -004

Presuming that this is in respect of 17th March 2016 this claim is out of time and so is statute barred.

All Public Holidays were added to holidays and paid at cessation of employment.

CA 9698 -005

They stated that all holiday pay was paid upon cessation of employment. He had 29 days due in total. 9 days were taken, leaving a balance of 20 due , which was paid at cessation.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA 9698 -003

I note that the contract of employment stated, “your salary has been calculated to take account of this and includes a premium for Sunday work”. Therefore, the economic value of the Sunday premium has been accounted for.

I note that this is a claim under Sec 23 of this Act. Sec 23 deals with “Compensation on Cesser of Employment”.

I find that it was accepted that he was paid this at cessation of employment. Therefore, I find that the Respondent has complied with the requirements of Sec 23, that is, he was paid on cessation.

This claim fails.

CA 9698 -004

I note that the Complainant has accepted that if the Respondent added together the holidays and Public Holidays and treated them as one, then there is no basis to the claim.

I note that the Respondent has confirmed that it is their practice to add the Public Holiday entitlements to that of holidays they are both treated as holidays and so in this case they became payable at cessation. Therefore, the claim for the 17th March, which was presumably in 2016, then it was in time.

I find that this entitlement to March 17th became payable at the cessation of employment.

I find this this was paid at cessation of employment.

I find no basis for this claim.

I find that this claim fails.

CA 9698 -005

I find that holiday entitlements due at cessation of employment were paid.

I find that this claim fails.

Decision:

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.

For the above stated reasons, I have decided that this claim fails.

Dated: 4th September 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly

Key Words: