ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011584
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A machine supervisor | A packaging firm |
Complaints:
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-00015422-001 | 29/10/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00015990-001 | 25/11/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00015990-002 | 25/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
The complainant referred three complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. They were scheduled for adjudication on the 30th May 2018. The complainant also referred an equal pay complaint, subject to my report in ADJ 12606. The complainant indicated that he had raised other complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission, subject to a report in ADJ 9278 (redundancy and Terms of Employment (Information)).
At the outset of the adjudication, it became apparent that there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. Having taken these steps, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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 worked for the respondent from November 2009 to his dismissal in July 2017. He claims unfair dismissal, an entitlement to notice pay and redress for a breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that his employment ended on 20th July 2017. He commenced employment with the respondent on the 19th November 2009 and was informed on the 17th July 2017 that it was coming to an end. He asserted that his dismissal was unfair as the respondent had not provided substantive grounds. He was not provided with sufficient notice.
The complainant that he found alternative employment quickly after his dismissal. He began another role on the 14th August 2017 and was now on higher pay. In respect of the Organisation of Working Time complaint, the complainant said that he worked 60 hours per week. The respondent calculated his pay entitlement during annual leave on the basis of a 40-hour week. He submitted that he was entitled to additional pay while on annual leave because of the additional hours he worked. He commented that the payment of annual leave was not stated on the pay slips issued by the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There were no evidence or submissions tendered by the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00015442-001 This is a complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act. Section 19 sets out an employee’s statutory entitlement to annual leave. For a full-time employee such as the complainant, this is an entitlement to four week’s leave. Section 20 provides that an employee is entitled pay over a period of annual leave that reflects his normal weekly pay. In this case, this is €1,023.20 per fortnight.
The complainant had a statutory right for his normal weekly rate to be the basis of the calculation of his pay during annual leave. I award the complainant redress of €1,200 in respect of this breach.
CA-00015990-001 This is a complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act. The complainant was awarded his entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment in accordance with section 7 of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967, as amended (as set out in ADJ 9278). As he was made redundant by the respondent, the complainant does not have a well founded case of unfair dismissal.
CA-00015990-002 The complainant was not given notice of the termination of his employment in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. This complaint is well founded. The complainant worked for the respondent for almost eight years; he has a statutory entitlement to notice of four weeks. He is, therefore, entitled to notice pay of €2,460.40. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00015442-001 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €1,200.
CA-00015990-001 For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act is not well founded.
CA-00015990-002 I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €2,460.40. |
Dated: 4th September 2018.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time / annual leave / normal weekly pay Unfair Dismissals Act / redundancy award Notice pay / Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act |