ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016845
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Complainant | A Spare Parts Supplier |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00021840-006 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act. | CA-00021840-007 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00021840-008 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00021840-009 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00021840-010 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00021840-011 | 13/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00021840-012 | 13/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following 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 commenced employment with the respondent on 2 April 2018 as a Sales Manager. He states that he was informed by the Director of the respondent company on 19 June 2018 that his employment was being terminated. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant’s role involved sales in spare parts of burners and boilers in the Republic of Ireland. The complainant asserts that the respondent company is well established in Northern Ireland but wanted to branch into the Republic. The complainant submits that he was given and signed a contract of employment in late March and commenced employment on 2 April 2018. He states that it was agreed by the respondent that he would work from home initially to reduce the cost of renting premises and that he would get an IPAD, van and phone but these never materialised. The complainant states that he used his own car, phone and PC and incurred €636 in expenses. The complainant states that he did not receive any payslips despite repeated requests for same. The complainant states that he was handed €250 in a café in Drogheda which he subsequently was told was his pay for one month’s work. In relation to his wages, the complainant states that he is owed wages in the amount of €3493 which represents 6 weeks work for which the respondent refused to pay him. The complainant also stated in his submission that he was discriminated against on grounds of religion under the Employment Equality Acts in relation to his pay. The complainant has stated that he did not receive his minimum notice from the respondent company. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00021840-006- under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 The complainant did not provide any prima facie evidence that he was covered by the Sectoral Employment Order under the above legislation and therefore I find that this complaint is misconceived. Accordingly I dismiss this claim.
CA-00021840-007 – under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act. This section of the Act refers to Sectoral Employment Order (Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector) 2018. This SEO applies to qualified plumbers and qualified pipefitters and registered apprentice pipefitters working in the sector. The complainant was employed as a sales manager and therefore he is not covered by statutory instrument 59 of 2018. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim as it is misconceived. CA-00021840-008 - Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 The complainant did not provide any prima facie evidence that he was covered by the above legislation and therefore I dismiss this complaint.
CA-00021840-009 - Section 77 of Employment Equality Act, 1998 The complainant did not proffer any prima facie evidence to demonstrate that he was discriminated against on grounds of religion in relation to equal pay under the Employment Equality Acts. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint.
CA-00021840-0010 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint. CA-00021840-0011 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint.
CA-00021840-0012 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint.
|
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.
CA-00021840-006- under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 The complainant did not provide any prima facie evidence that he was covered by the Sectoral Employment Order under the above legislation and therefore I find that this complaint is misconceived. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim.
CA-00021840-007 – under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations Act. This section of the Act refers to Sectoral Employment Order (Mechanical Engineering Building Services Contracting Sector) 2018. This SEO applies to qualified plumbers and qualified pipefitters and registered apprentice pipefitters working in the sector. The complainant was employed as a sales manager and therefore he is not covered by statutory instrument 59 of 2018. Accordingly, I dismiss this claim as it is misconceived.
CA-00021840-008 - Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 The complainant did not provide any prima facie evidence that he was covered by the above legislation and therefore I dismiss this complaint as it is misconceived.
CA-00021840-009 - Section 77 of Employment Equality Act, 1998 The complainant did not proffer any prima facie evidence to demonstrate that he was discriminated against on grounds of religion in relation to equal pay under the Employment Equality Acts. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint. CA-00021840-0010 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint. CA-00021840-0011 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint. CA-00021840-0012 – Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The complainant does not have a valid complaint under this legislation as he did not have 13 weeks service with the respondent company. Accordingly, I dismiss this complaint.
|
Dated: 09/04/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Valerie Murtagh