Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00017324-001

07/02/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00017324-002

07/02/2018

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

CA-00017378-001

10/02/2018

The Complainant submitted claims for unfair dismissal, not being paid for a month of work and for non payment of two months notice as per her contract.

The Complainant earned 41,213 Euros per year.

Under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 the Complainant stated she worked for the month of January 2018 and was not paid 2918.93 Euros due to no funding.

Under the Industrial Relations Act 1991 the Complainant stated she was given one week’s notice of lay off due to lack of work and her RP9 stated “no work available” but there was work and the Company Handbook does not allow for layoff when work is available. She is claiming that she was entitled to 2 month’s notice under her contract of employment.

Under the Unfair Dismissals Act the Complainant stated she was hired as a Project Co-ordinator on January 2nd 2018.

She was told on Jan 5th 2018 that there was no external funding for the position.

The employer stayed to the external funding body that this was an “existing obligation” and should be paid.

The Complainant requested internal grievance meetings but was not facilitated and submitted a claim to the WRC.

The Complainant was emailed on February 9th 2018 with a letter of termination for “business reasons”. The Complainant believes that by submitting the claim to the WRC her employer decided to terminate her employment.

Her contract states she is entitled to two months notice but was only paid a week.

The Complainant sought detailed reasons for her termination but these were not provided by the Respondent.

The Complainant was informed on February 1st 2018 that she was being put on four-week layoff and she felt this would be temporary from the Respondents perspective.

The Complainant stated she believed the Respondent did not try to resolve the funding issues with the external funding source.

The Complainant stated the funding existed as in previous years and that she believed this had to be used for employing a full time person and that once she was terminated the Respondent may employ another person instated of her.

The Complainant claim form to the WRC stated she was employed from August 31st 2016 to February 9th 2018 but at the Hearing the complainant advised that she was employed up to December 31st 2017 as an Independent Contractor but believes the Department of Social Protection would classify her as an employee for this period.

The Respondent advised that there was a funding issue with an external source to pay for the Complainants continued employment or to pay her entitlements. The Respondent advised they were in general agreement with the Complainants evidence.

Under the claim submitted under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 Claim Reference Number CA-00017324-001 I find that the Complainant is entitled under her contract of employment to be paid for the full month of January 2018 which she worked and is due any remaining payment due for that month which has not been paid to the Complainant, which she calculates as 2,918.93 Euros. I award the Complainant 2,913.93 Euros accordingly.

Under the Claim Reference Number CA-00017324-002, under the Industrial Relations Act 1991 the Complainants contract specifically states during the first six months of the employment that the Complainant is on probation and that the contract can be terminated by either party with one weeks notice.     However in the Clause “Termination of Employment” either party may give each other 2 months notice or the minimum required under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1993 , whichever is greater on termination of the contract. It would appear to the Adjudicator that the Complainants contract was not terminated for any reason specific to her performance during the period of time while she was employed on probation and I recommend that the Complainant be paid the additional 7 weeks due to her on termination of her employment     under the clause of the contract “Termination of Employment” .                                                                                                       With regard to Claim reference Number CA-00017324-003 under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 the Complainant advised at the Hearing that her direct employment with the Respondent commenced on January 1st 2018 and her employment was terminated on February 9th 2018. Under Section 2.1.(A) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997 an employee must have a minimum of one years service with a Respondent to proceed with a claim under the Act. Whilst the Complainant stated that she had commenced work with the Respondent on August 31st 2016, this period until December 31st 2017 was as an Independent Contractor and as the Complainant provided no evidence from the Department of Social Protection that this status had been amended to that of “employee” I deem that the claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act fails as the Complainant does not have the minimum of one year’s service with the Respondent as an “employee” as required under Section 2.1. (A) of the Act to proceed with a claim.                                                                                                                             

Unfair Dismissal