ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION & RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015226
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A carer | A nursing home |
Representatives |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00019807-001 | ||
CA-00019807-002 | ||
CA-00019807-003 | ||
CA-00019807-004 | ||
CA-00019807-005 | ||
CA-00019807-006 | ||
CA-00019807-007 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaints / disputes to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints / disputes and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints / disputes.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 25th January 2017 until 12th April 2018. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 16th June 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant started working for the Respondent on 25th January 2017 after accepting a job offer received on the 25th October 2016. She was working normally 48 hours per week with every second week having one extra shift, bring the total up to 60 hours. Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – Sunday Premium According to section 14(3) of the Act “For the purposes of proceedings under Part IV before a Rights Commissioner or the Labour Court in relation to a complaint that this section has not been complied with in relation to an employee to whom this subsection applies (“the first-mentioned employee”) the value or the minimum value of the compensation that a collective agreement for the time being specifies shall be provided to a comparable employee in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday shall be regarded as the value of compensation to be provided under this section to the first-mentioned employee that is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances”. The HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment dated March 2017, at page 75 under “Sunday Work” heading, mentions – Sunday work is normally defined as any roster which commences between midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sunday. An employee who works a 5 over 7 roster and is scheduled to work on Sunday is entitled to single time extra for each hour worked. Therefore, the Complainant should have been paid double time for Sundays worked. Organisation of Working Time Ac 1997 – Holiday Pay The Complainant was working 12-hour shifts, having an average of 4 shifts per week. Every second week she worked 5 shifts, and this was confirmed by payslips provided by the Respondent. It is unacceptable that the Complainant was only entitled to 8 hours pay for every Holiday pay day, when she normally worked at least 48 hours a week. The Complainant has received no payment for holiday pay for 2018. Part III of The Act at paragraph 19 (1) states “Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998) an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to – a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment) b) One third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours or c) 8 per cent of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks) Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater”. The only conclusion is that the Respondent underpaid the Complainant for holiday as for 2017 she was also paid only 8 hours holiday pay. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 – Public Holiday The Complainant was working 12-hour shifts, having an average of 4 shifts per week. Every second week she worked 5 shifts, and this was confirmed by payslips provided by the Respondent. It is unacceptable that the Complainant was only entitled to 8 hours pay for every Bank Holiday pay, when she normally worked at least 48 hours a week. It is important to note that when the Complainant worked during a public holiday, the shift was 12 hours long and was paid double time for work done that day. It is unfair to have a 12 hour long shift and be paid only 8 hours if not working, as no shift was shorter than 12 hours. Even if we look at SI Number 475/1997, paragraph 5(2) where it says “if the employee concerned (not being an employee to whom paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of the Regulation 6 of these Regulations apply) does not work on a day which is a public holiday then – a) In the case the employee’s pay is calculated wholly be reference to any of the matters referred to in Regulation 3(2) of these Regulations, the relevant rate in respect of that public holiday shall be the sum that is equal to one fifth of the sum including any regular bonus or allowance the amount of which does not vary in relation to the work done by the employee but excluding any pay for overtime) paid in respect of the normal weekly hours last worked by the employee before that public holiday”, we see that the Complainant was entitled to more than 8 hours she got paid for Public Holidays. In this case, it is important to see exactly the number of hours worked in the week prior to the Public Holidays concerned. Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 – Changes in the Contract The Complainant was offered a position within the Company, by post, on 25th October 2016. A clear career path is described in that letter, details which are also included in the contract of employment. No mention about any trainings, courses or exams can be seen in the letter or contract. The Respondent decided not to follow the career path described in both the offer letter and the contract of employment, altering the conditions of employment as detailed in the contract. Section 5(1) of The Act states “Subject to subsection 92) whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6 the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but no later than – a) 1 month after the change takes effect, or b) Where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month the time of the employee’s departure”. There is no mention in the entire Act about changes being notified on the employee on request or if a grievance is raised with the Company. The Complainant was never informed about modifications on the conditions of employment. Payment of Wages Act 1991 – Unlawful deductions The Company deducted €1,743.87 from the final salary payment due to the Complainant. There is absolutely no support in legislation for such deductions. Section 5 of the Act states “5(1) an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless – a) The deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute, b) The deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, deduction or payment or c) In the case of a deduction the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it”. None of the above conditions are applicable in this situation. The Respondent relies on an illegal clause included in the contract under “Required Commitment”. This paragraph sets out that the Respondent has invested an amount of approximately €14,000 in bringing the individual Nurse to the point of being a Registered Nurse. There are two mentions to be made here: · The Complainant is a qualified Nurse as per the studies and diplomas obtained in Romania. This was later confirmed by receiving the PIN number from the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland (NMBI). I would like to underline that the PIN number required to work as a Nurse in Ireland is only issued to persons who satisfy the strict criteria imposed by NMBI and no person without proper qualification can register with NMBI and obtain the PIN. Therefore, no other training and expenses on behalf of the employer or employee are needed for any person to become a nurse. · The Complainant was not offered the chance to read a breakdown of such expenses that would amount to €14,000 until the company provided that list at another hearing at the WRC. It is noted that the list comprises several expenses that are deductible for any company, and its therefore illegal to request the same amount from the employee. Also, wages and recruitment fees are included in the list provided by the Company. Regarding the recruitment and training fees imposed on the employees, these are illegal in European Union and this aspect are included in Section 21 of the Employment Agency Regulation Bill, 2009 which says: “21. (1) A placement agency that charges an individual a fee in respect of – (a) the effecting of the introduction of that individual to another person for the purposes of his or her employment by that or any other person (b) the doing of any act for the purposes of the individual’s obtaining employment either in the State or in a place other than the State, or (c) the provision of training to him or her for that purpose, shall be guilty of an offence. (2) A person who employs an individual who has been charged a fee by a placement agency in respect of – (a) the effecting of the introduction of that individual to the person, or another person for the purposes of his or her employment by the person, (b) the doing of any Act for the purposes of the individual’s obtaining employment either in the State or in a place other than the State or (c) the provision of training to him or her for that purpose shall be guilty of an offence”. Also included in the list is a €300 amount for a one-way flight from Romania to Ireland. In times when only low cost carriers offer direct connections between Romania and Ireland and fares start with €20 for a one-way flight, €300 is an unjustified amount to charge for a flight. The final aspect regarding this list is that no evidence on the actual expenses were produced by the Respondent leaving room for interpretation that these amounts are purely fictional and have no legal support. In conclusion, the Company illegally deducted money from the Complainant’s final salary and the Company must pay back the entire amount |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
INTRODUCTION The Complainant makes 7 complaints against the Respondent pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 the Payment of Wages Act 1991, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Respondent denies these claims in their entirety and sets out its position in respect of each allegation in further detail below. BACKGROUND The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 25th January 2017. She resigned on 29th March 2018, with her last day being the 12th April 2017. She worked as a Carer from 25th January 2017 at a rate of €10.00 per hour until 25th May 2017 when she commenced the pre-registration course at an increased hourly rate of €12.50. CA-00019807-001 The Complainant alleges that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 has been breached in that she states “I am not given compensation for working on a Sunday”. My employer does not pay compensation for working on a Sunday as per the collective agreement”. The Respondent denies the allegation that the Complainant was not given compensation for working on a Sunday. Furthermore, there is no collective agreement in place affecting the Complainant’s terms and conditions of employment. When the Complainant worked Sundays she was paid the normal hourly rate plus 15 per cent for each Sunday that she worked. It is submitted that this satisfies Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 as an allowance was paid in addition to the hourly rate. In Viking Security Ltd v Valent DWT 89/2014, the Labour Court held that it could only be satisfied that an employee had obtained his or her entitlements under this section “where the element of compensation for the obligation to work on Sunday is clearly discernible from the contract of employment or from the circumstances surrounding its conclusion”. Sundays worked are recorded separately and itemised on each payslip and paid the additional allowance of 15 per cent therefore it is clearly discernible from the payslips the Complainant was paid her entitlement under Section 14. The Sunday rate of pay is €11.50 per hour when working as a Carer and €14.37 per hour as a pre-registered Nurse. CA-00019807-002 The Complainant claims “I did not receive my paid holiday/annual leave entitlement”. The Complainant continues by stating that “I was not paid for holiday entitlement in full”. The Complainant has provided no further information in respect of this. The Respondent disputes this claim. The Complainant was provided with her holiday entitlement in accordance with Section 19(1) of Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, which specifies an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment), b) One third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours or c) 8 per cent of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks) The complaint form was lodged on 16th June 2018, it is unclear what the Complainant is claiming in this regard. The Respondent’s holiday year runs from 1st January to 31st December each year. She was paid 148.48 hours in 2017, which was in excess of 8% of hours worked, as evidenced by payslips dated 13th August 2017, 5th November 2017 and 19th November 2017. On 20th May 2018, she was paid 61.26 hours holiday in respect of annual leave for 2018, upon termination of her employment. CA00019807-003 The Complainant claims “I have not received my public holiday entitlements”. “I was paid less than the amount I was entitled to”. The Complainant alleges that she did not receive public holiday entitlements but has provided no further information in respect of this or the amounts that she alleges are owed. The relevant Public Holidays that occurred in the 6-month period prior to the submission of this claim 25th December 2017 – worked – paid double time 26th December 2017 – worked – paid double time 1st January 2018 – not worked – she was paid 7.24 hours 17th March 2018 – not worked – she was paid 7.5 hours 2nd April 2018 – worked – paid double time The Complainant was paid in accordance with Section 20 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and in accordance with SI No 475/1997 – Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations 1997 which provides that if an employee’s pay is calculated wholly by reference to a time rate or a fixed rate or salary as is the case in relation to the Complainant, the amount paid to the employee for the public holiday is equal to 1/5 of the amount paid to her in respect of the normal weekly hours last worked by the employee before the public holiday. CA-00019807-004 The Complainant claims “My employer has paid me less than the amount due to me”. She claims €15,000. She further states “My employer has not paid me less than the amount mentioned in the contract”. “I was also not paid a night shift premium”. The Respondent denies these complaints. The Respondent is unclear as to how the Complainant’s calculations in relation to unpaid salary amounts to €15,000. The Complainant has not clarified this sum in her claim form. When the Complainant worked as a Carer, she was paid a night shift premium. CA-00019807-005 The Complainant claims “I was not notified in writing of a change to my terms of employment”. The Complainant elaborates on this by stating that “My employer did not notify me about the changes in the terms of employment”. The Complainant has provided no further information in respect of the alleged changes. The Respondent denies this complaint. No changes were made which were not already provided for in the contract. CA-00019807-006 The Complainant claims “My employer has made an unlawful deduction from my wages”. She elaborates by saying “My employer deducted the amount from my wages without showing any proof of the costs”. The Respondent denies the Complainant’s allegations and submits that the deduction was made from the Complainant’s salary in accordance with Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 Given the serious shortages of nursing staff in Ireland, the Respondent regularly recruits nursing staff from overseas. A significant number of its staff are recruited from overseas (i.e. over 90% of nursing staff across the organisation are recruited from outside of Ireland). The Respondent incurs a significant expense in the form of training costs, in order to enable these new recruits to train and work in Ireland. In order to protect its business, given this significant investment, the Respondent includes the below “Required Commitment” clause in its employment contracts. This becomes applicable in the event of a nursing staff member resigning from her position at the Company within 24 months of commencement of her employment. The Required Commitment clause states: “Required Commitment As you are aware, (Respondent name) is making a significant investment in you as an individual and as a professional, and in your future with (Respondent name). This investment in you approximates to €14,000. In return for this investment we have an expectation that you will remain in our employment for at least 24 months. As advised at interview, we will look to recover part or all of this investment if you resign within 24 months of your start date. The level of recovery sought by the Company, voluntarily initially, and legally if required, will depend on the length of your employment should you decide to resign your position within 24 months of your start date as follows, a) if you resign within 12 months of your start date, we will look to recover the full €8,000. b) if you resign in the 13 to 18 month period following your start date, we will look to recover €6,000 and c) if you resign in the 19 to 24 month period following your start date we will look to recover €4,000. If there are exceptional circumstances which necessitate your resignation within 24 months of your start date, these exceptional circumstances may be taken into consideration in relation to the recovery of this investment, but it is at the complete discretion of the Company”. The presence and effect of this clause in the contract of employment is expressly mentioned to all staff during the interview process. On 5th April 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant, this letter specifically drew the Complainant’s attention to the “Required Commitment” clause. The letter provided 7 days’ notice of the Respondent’s intention to deduct the monies owed to it from the Complainant’s next salary payment. The letter also requested that the Complainant also contact the Company within 14 days to arrange payment or that Company would otherwise commence legal action. This letter also highlighted that the Complainant was in breach of her contractual obligations by failing to work out her full notice period. The Respondent argues that it deducted the amount from the Complainant’s salary on the basis that it was an act or omission of the Complainant in leaving her employment prior to 24 month period and that the agreement was if this occurred the Respondent would be entitled to recover its costs. The Complainant left employment on 28th April 2018 and the money was deducted from her salary within six months of the act or omissions. Section 5 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides as follows: “5(1) An employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee (or receive any payment from an employee) unless a) The deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of any statute or any instrument made under statute b) The deduction (or payment) is required or authorised to be made by virtue of a term of the employee’s contract of employment included in the contract before, and in force at the time of, the deduction or payment or c) In the case of a deduction the employee has given his prior consent in writing to it”. The Complainant was expressly referred to the required commitment clause within her contract at the outset of her employment at interview, and she signed this contract thereby giving her prior consent in writing to it. Section 5(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 places further restrictions on employers in relation to deductions where they relate to a) Any act or omission of the employee or b) Any goods or services supplied to or provided for the employee by the employer the supply or provision of which is necessary to the employment Proceeding on the basis that Section 5(2)(a) is applicable to the present circumstances, the Respondent submits that it lawfully made the deduction in accordance with the additional requirements imposed on an employer by virtue of this section, as follows: i. The deduction must be provided for by virtue of a term of the contract of employment In that regard, the Complainant’s contract contains a “Required Commitment” clause which, the Respondent submits expressly authorise the Respondent to make deductions from an employee’s salary, in the event that she leaves employment with the Company within 24 months of her start date. The Complainant left after 14 months. ii. The amount of the deduction must be fair and reasonable having regard to all circumstances (including the amount of wages of the employee) The Respondent respectfully submits that the Complainant was fully aware of the significance of the Required Commitment clause in her contract of employment, which had been brought to her attention at the outset of her employment and one week prior to the deduction being made by the Respondent on €789.10 on 8th April 2018, €246.62 on 22nd April 2018, €708.15 on 20th May 2018. It is respectfully submitted that she therefore had a responsibility to prepare financially for the deduction from her salary. iii. The Employee must have received a written copy of the term permitting the deduction The Complainant was provided with a copy of her contract, which contained the relevant clauses. Furthermore, this was again highlighted to her via the Respondent’s letter to her dated 5th April 2018, which outlined the effect of the clause. iv. The deduction is of an amount not exceeding the cost of the employer of the goods or services. The expenditure incurred by the Respondent in relation to the Complainant was significantly below the expense incurred by the Respondent. v. The deduction must be made no later than 6 months subsequent to the act or omission becoming known to the employer or, as the case may be, after the provision of the goods or services. The deduction was made during April and May 2018. CA-00019807-007 The Complainant claims “My employer forced me to work while on sick leave”. This is denied in its entirety by the Respondent. The Complainant submitted two sick certificates certifying her as unfit to attend work from 7th to 14th October 2017 and again from 18th to 20th October 2017. She came back prior to the end of the cert for financial reasons. This was not identified until the certs were scrutinised later, following her return to work where she advised she was unable to afford to be out sick. She had a further absence on 23rd October where she phoned to advised she had a chest infection. Her partner advised the Home Manager on the morning of 24th October that she was quite sick with a bad chest and advised that he was concerned as she had no money to pay for medical treatment and was waiting for medication to come from Romania as she was unable to pay for any medication that had been prescribed. The Home Manager expressed concerns in relation to her wellbeing and her early return to work the previous week. She immediately advised the Complainant’s partner that she would arrange to pay for the Complainant to attend the Doctor. The Home Manager advised him that she would personally pay for the visit and for any medications that were prescribed given the Complainant’s financial situation. Her partner thanked the Home Manager and advised that the Complainant would accept this offer and agreed for the Home Manager to pay for the medication. The Home Manager contacted the Doctor and asked if she could facilitate a review of the Complainant and she agreed to that at lunchtime. She was reviewed by the Doctor on the 24th October and prescribed medication and advised to have a chest x ray. The medications were delivered to the Home Manager on the evening of 25th October and collected by the Complainant’s partner. The Complainant remained absent from work for the remainder of that week. The two weeks following were annual leave. There were a further two absences in January 2018. The Respondent denies that there was any bullying or harassment as alleged by the Complainant. In no way was the Complainant forced to work. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, the Respondent respectfully invites the Adjudication Officer to dismiss the above complaints. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA – 00019807 – 001. The Complainant alleges that the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 has been breached in that she states: “I am not given compensation for working on a Sunday”. My employer does not pay compensation for working on a Sunday as per the collective agreement”. I believe the Collective Agreement referred to is the HSE Guidelines on Terms and Conditions of Employment dated March 2017.The Complainant is not employed by the HSE and therefore is not covered by this Agreement. The Respondent claims that a premium of 15% is paid for Sunday working. The payslips produced at the hearing shows an entry for Sunday pay. This complaint is not well founded and therefore fails. CA – 00019807 – 002. The Complainant claims “I did not receive my paid holiday/annual leave entitlement”. The Complainant continues by stating that “I was not paid for holiday entitlement in full”. From the breakdown of the hours provided at the hearing I estimate that the Complainant worked 40 hours per week, the contract of employment stipulates 39 hours per week and adds that these hours may be changed at the discretion of management. The Respondent provided wage slips that show holiday entitlement was paid however these do not reflect the fact that the Complainant worked on 30 Sundays over a period of 14 months. The Sunday premium should have been included in her holiday pay, I have taken 30 Sundays x 12 hours per day x 8% = 28.8 hours at €2.50 (Sunday premium of 15%), this provides a total of €72.00. I now order the Respondent to make the payment of €72 (gross) to the Complainant. Section 27 (3) (c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment, ……………. Under Section 27 (3) (c) Iorder the Complainant to pay compensation of €1,000 to the Complainant. CA00019807-003 The Complainant claims “I have not received my public holiday entitlements”. “I was paid less than the amount I was entitled to”. The Complainant received her Public Holiday entitlements. This complaint is not well founded and fails. CA-00019807-004 The Complainant claims “My employer has paid me less than the amount due to me”. She claims €15,000. She further states “My employer has paid me less than the amount mentioned in the contract”. “I was also not paid a night shift premium”. The Respondent denies these complaints. There is no legal obligation to pay a premium for night shift working. Any deductions made from the Complainant’s salary were authorised via her signed acceptance of the “Required Commitment “clause contained within the employment contract and the notice provisions contained within the Act were complied with by the Respondent. The contract of employment covers the following stages of integration to Qualified Nurse: 1. One month induction programme for which the employee will be paid a rate of €10 per hour. 2. Work as a carer until you have an acceptable level of English…. Minimum three months maximum six months. Wage rate during this period is €10 per hour. 3. Pre-registration 12 week course for which the employee will be paid €12.50 per hour. 4. A follow on 8-month probation period as a Nurse for which you will be paid a rate of €18 per hour as soon as you receive your NMBI pin. 5. 9 months after the completion of your 8 month probation period as a nurse, a total of 24 months from the date you joined the nursing home (made up of,1 months induction, an assumption that you work as a carer for 3 months, 3 months on pre- registration, 8 months’ probation as a nurse plus the 9 months) your rate per hour will increase to €19 per hour minus statutory deductions. The Complainant received her NMBI registration and Pin on 3rd May 2018, she left employment in April 2018. For the duration of her employment she was paid in accordance with her contract of employment. This complaint is not well founded. CA-00019807-005 The Complainant claims “I was not notified in writing of a change to my terms of employment”. The changes were covered in the contract of employment. This complaint is not well founded. CA-00019807-006 The Complainant claims “My employer has made an unlawful deduction from my wages”. She elaborates by saying “My employer deducted the amount from my wages without showing any proof of the costs”. The contract of employment, signed by the complainant, is quite explicit. The “Required Commitment” clause permits the Respondent to make the deductions if the employee leaves within two years. In this instant case it may not be fair, but it is not illegal. This complaint is not well founded. CA-00019807-007 The Complainant claims “My employer forced me to work while on sick leave”. The Complainant submitted two sick certificates certifying her as unfit to attend work from 7th to 14th October 2017 and again from 18th to 20th October 2017. She came back prior to the end of the cert for financial reasons. This was not identified until the certs were scrutinised later, following her return to work where she advised she was unable to afford to be out sick. She had a further absence on 23rd October where she phoned to advised she had a chest infection. Her partner advised the Home Manager on the morning of 24th October that she was quite sick with a really bad chest and advised that he was concerned as she had no money to pay for medical treatment and was waiting for medication to come from Romania as she was unable to pay for any medication that had been prescribed. The Home Manager expressed concerns in relation to her wellbeing and her early return to work the previous week. She immediately advised the Complainant’s partner that she would arrange to pay for the Complainant to attend the Doctor. The Home Manager advised him that she would personally pay for the visit and for any medications that were prescribed given the Complainant’s financial situation. Her partner thanked the Home Manager and advised that the Complainant would accept this offer and agreed for the Home Manager to pay for the medication. The Home Manager contacted the Doctor and asked if she could facilitate a review of the Complainant and she agreed to that at lunchtime. She was reviewed by the Doctor on the 24th October and prescribed medication and advised to have a chest x ray. The medications were delivered to the Home Manager on the evening of 25th October and collected by the Complainant’s partner. The Complainant remained absent from work for the remainder of that week. The two weeks following were annual leave. This complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
CA – 00019807 – 002. The Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of €72 to the Complainant as unpaid holiday pay and is also ordered to pay the sum of €1,000 compensation to the Complainant for this breach of the Act. All sums payable to the Complainant should be made within 42 days from the date of this decision. |
Dated: December 17th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|