ADJ-00017822

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A General Operative

A Bakery

Representatives

Daniel Snihur, Independent Workers Union

Lukasz Bialek , Proprietor

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00022972-001

01/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00022972-002

01/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997(Withdrawn at Hearing)

CA-00022972-003

01/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991(Withdrawn at hearing)

CA-00022972-004

01/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967(Withdrawn at hearing)

CA-00022972-005

01/11/2018

This case arose from a former employment which has now ceased trading. The case involves a Polish Proprietor of a Bakery business and a polish complainant who was also a relative of the Proprietors wife.

The parties make considerable progress prior to the hearing. Both parties confirmed that:

CA -00022972-003 Annual Leave

CA -00022972-004 Hours of Work

CA -00022972-005 Redundancy

Had been compromised between the parties and had been withdrawn.

This case proceeded with:

1. CA -00022972-001     Payment In lieu of Notice

2.CA -00022972-002     Statement of Terms of Employment.

Both parties were represented, the Complainant by her Union and the Respondent by his Accountant.

I received copies of pay slip. RP50 and P45 which have been added to the electronic file.

The Complainant presented her case with support from an Interpreter.

The Complainant worked as a General Operative with the Respondent bakery from 4 July 2016 to 19 October 2018. She received a gross pay of €11.50 per hour for a 28-hr week. Her employment was brought to a rapid conclusion through the closure of the business and it has not re-opened. The Complainant sought a two-week payment in lieu of her statutory notice.

CA -00022972-001 Payment in lieu of Notice

The Complainant outlined that she had been notified of her impending redundancy on 18 October 2018 and the Business closed the next day, her final day of work. The Respondent has since made a lump sum payment of Redundancy and the complainant sought two weeks payment in lieu.

The Union had sought to secure repayment arrangement informally, but this was not possible, and the complainant sought a decision in the case.

CA -00022972-002 Statement of Terms of Employment.

The Union outlined that the complainant had not been provided with a signed statement of terms of employment within the statutory period at the commencement of her employment. She had requested it but was informed that she could print it off herself. The Union contended that the complainant had been disadvantaged by this omission

The Respondent confirmed the facts of the case as submitted by the complainant. The Respondent outlined a sudden closure of his business and his incapacity to re-open the premises. He had endeavoured to make outstanding payments on all employment matters but could not afford to pay the current claims. The Respondent confirmed that the complainant had sought her P45. He did not anticipate re-opening the business which no longer traded.

CA -00022972-001 Payment in lieu of Notice

The Respondent confirmed his liability to meet the claim but pleaded an inability to pay. He accepted that the complainant had attained over two years’ service.

CA -00022972-002 Statement of Terms of Employment.

The Respondent accepted that the complainant had not been provided with a statement of her terms of employment. The Respondent stated that is was not deliberate, but it was a family business and the complainant was the owner’s wife’s cousin and it was overlooked. The Respondent stressed that the complainant had received all other statutory entitlements.

I have listened carefully to the oral presentations of both complaints. I have considered the documents submitted at hearing.

CA -00022972-001 Payment in lieu of Notice

There is no dispute in terms of the admission of liability in this case.

Section 1 of the Act defines wages as:

“wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice:

The Respondent is liable to pay the complainant in lieu of her notice period as provided for in section 4(2) (b) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment act, 1973. I find the claim is well founded.

CA -00022972-002 Statement of Terms of Employment.

It was common case that the requisite statement of terms of employment had not been provided in this case. Given the speed in which the employment ended, I believe that this document had it been in existence would have guided the parties at a much earlier stage. I find that the Respondent has continuously breached Section 3 of the Act and the complainant has suffered a detriment. Her claim is well founded.

Minimum Notice and Statement of Terms of Employment