Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A plumber

A construction firm

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00022652-001

16/10/2018

The complainant outlined that he raised the issue of his notice pay when he was informed that his employment was coming to an end. He referred the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission when he heard nothing. He then received a phone call to say that he would be paid notice pay. He sought payment of €1,300 and would have paid less tax had he been paid when the money was due. The complainant said that he was later paid €1,059 and the gross amount was €1,755.

The complainant said that he did not receive the proper pay rate. From the 1^st March, he should have been paid €23.60 instead €22.50 (€22 as pay). There was no agreement regarding pay and he was told that he would be paid the union rate. He was not paid country and travel money for jobs outside of Dublin, measured from the GPO. He should have been paid for travel to work in Rathcoole and country money while travelling to Naas. After his dismissal, the respondent had work and engaged subcontractors. The complainant was let go on the 25^th May.

The respondent outlined that the complainant would have paid the same tax irrespective of when the money was paid to him. The complainant was paid for two weeks instead of the one week he was looking for. They paid him for 78 hours. The complainant started on the 7^th November 2017 on an agreed rate of pay. There was a grey area following the introduction of the SEO and this was paid in August/September. The complainant was not entitled to country money for the Naas work and country money is only paid for jobs far away. The subcontractors now used by the respondent are gas trained, while the complainant was not. 

The complainant’s employment came to an end on the 25^th May 2018. He was due statutory notice pay of one week. The complainant sought this payment, but this was not forthcoming. On the 16^th October 2018, he pursued this matter with the Workplace Relations Commission. On the 26^th October 2018, the respondent remitted the complainant two weeks of notice pay (€1,755 gross and €1,059.70 net).

The complainant’s statutory entitlement was for one week. Section 12 of the amended Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act provides that, where there is a contravention of the Act, redress may “include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.” Where an employer delays in paying notice pay, this provision allows redress to be awarded to compensate for loss caused by such delay.

There was certainly a contravention in this case. The respondent, however, paid the complainant his statutory notice pay, and also paid him for an extra week. I, therefore, find that there was a contravention of the Act but make no additional award of redress.

CA-00022652-001

I find that there was a contravention of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act and I make no award of compensation as the complainant was paid the notice pay due as well as one additional week.

Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act / section 12

Award of compensation