ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00017708
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Chef | A Restaurant |
Representatives | Citizens’ Information Service |
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00022882-001 | 26/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00022882-002 | 26/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00022882-003 | 26/10/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00022882-004 | 26/10/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had been employed by the respondent for just over four years. The restaurant closed on very short notice and the complainant s makes four complaints. The first relates to public holidays. He says that he was required to work on almost all public holidays and received no additional remuneration or time off. He is also owed wages for the period after notice of the closure was communicated and the actual closure; a total of one week ad three days equivalent to €588.80. Two of the complaints relate to the fact that he was not paid a notice payment as required by the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973. Complaint CA-00022882-003 is a duplicate complaint and was withdrawn at the hearing. His co-workers were also owed wages and notice payments also. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for the failure to do so. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant gave evidence that he did not receive the various payments and I accept his evidence. In relation to his entitlement to public holidays the cognisable period is the annual leave year 2017 and the period up to the termination of his employment. He stated in evidence that he did not work on Christmas Day or St Stephen’s Day, giving rise to an entitlement to seven days, and a further four in 2018; a total of eleven days. This comes to €809.60 On the basis of his service he is entitled to two weeks’ wages in lieu of notice; €736.00 and he is due six days wages which were unpaid; €588.80 I uphold complaints CA-00022882-001, 002 and 004. Complaint CA-00022882-003 is a duplicate complaint and was withdrawn at the hearing. |
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.
I uphold complaint CA-00022882-001 (public holidays) and award the complainant €809.60. I uphold complaint CA-00022882-002 (unpaid wages) and award the complainant €588.80 I uphold complaint CA-00022882-004 (minimum notice) and award the complainant €736.00 Complaint CA-00022882-003 is a duplicate complaint and was withdrawn at the hearing. |
Dated: January 8th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Wages, Leave |