Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Contract Cleaner

A Limited Company

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-00023667-001

30/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023667-002

30/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023667-003

30/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023667-005

30/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023667-006

30/11/2018

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

CA-00023667-008

30/11/2018

The complainant withdrew CA 23667 – 001 003, 005. CA 23667 – 004 and 007 were withdrawn prior to the hearing.

CA 23667 – 002

The complainant alleges that she worked 14 consecutive days with no rest period.

CA 23667 – 006

The complainant had a period of two weeks off on certified sick leave. Immediately after that she requested three weeks holidays. Her holiday pay was two weeks late. She had to bring the issue to the attention of her supervisor. The payment was lodged to her bank on the 4th October.

CA 23667 -008

The complainant states that in 2011 she was paid € 9.50 per hour and on Sundays € 10.36 per hour, 8.3% supplement. Now she is paid €10.80 per hour and on Sundays €11.20, 3.6% supplement. The complainant feels that her Sunday supplement should remain at 8.3%

CA 23667 -002

The respondent accepts that on one occasion it did concede to a request, made by the complainant, to work on a bank holiday Monday. In doing so the complainant did work 14 consecutive days with no rest period. The respondent accepts that was in breach of its legal obligations under the act and has since refused such requests from the complainant.

CA 23667 – 006

The complainant was not paid for her two weeks sick leave in line with her contract of employment. She was paid her holiday pay in the next pay run which was two weeks later. The complainant was paid on the 31st August, the 14th September, the next pay run was missed as she was on sick leave and she was paid again the 28th September. There was no delay in the payment.

CA 23667 -008

The respondent accepts the figures as submitted by the complainant. There is no obligation on the respondent to increase the Sunday Supplement in line with salary increases.

CA 23667 -002 (Organisation of Work Time Act 1997)

S13.—(1) In this section “daily rest period” means a rest period referred to in section 11 .

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours; subject to subsections (4) and (6), the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.

The respondent accepts that it was in breach of the Act in allowing the complainant work 14 consecutive days without a break. However, it did so following a request from the complainant. Since then they have refused to allow the complainant to work 14 consecutive days and have denied her requests to do so.

Section 27 (3) A decision of a rights commissioner under subsection (2) shall do one or more of the following:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(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, and the references in the foregoing paragraphs to an employer shall be construed, in a case where ownership of the business of the employer changes after the contravention to which the complaint relates occurred, as references to the person who, by virtue of the change, becomes entitled to such ownership.

The respondent concedes that it did breach the Act on one occasions when it granted the complainant’s request to work the bank holiday. In circumstances where it only happened once and only happened due to the complainant’s request to work the bank holiday, compensation is not an appropriate award. I require the respondent to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the Act going forward.

CA 23667 – 006

I am satisfied based on the documentary evidence submitted by the complainant and the respondent that the complainant was paid her holiday pay and was paid on time. Her payslip for the 28th September clearly includes the holiday pay. Why the money did not reach her account until the 4th October is not a matter for the respondent but probably the bank.

CA 23667 -008

The respondent accepts the factual situation as outlined by the complainant but disputes the fact that there is any obligation on them to increase the Sunday supplement in line with the salary increase. I accept the respondent’s argument that there is no obligation on them to increase the Sunday Supplement in line with salary increases and therefore I am not making any recommendation in relation to the matter.