ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016683
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Bar Tender | A Bar |
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-00021682-001 | 08/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00021682-003 | 08/09/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00021682-004 | 08/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/05/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant worked with the respondent from 4th December 2017 and left on 28th June 2018. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00021682-001
The complainant detailed that she is owed annual leave for working 594 during the cognisable period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00021682-001
The respondent did not attend. The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing, and in the circumstances, I find that their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00021682-001
Section 19 of the Act details that an employee should be entitled to annual leave equal to
(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 respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the complainant accrued annual leave totalling approximately 47.5 hours during the cognisable period from 9th March 2018 to 8th September 2018 and employment ceased on 28th June 2018. I find that the claim is well founded. The complainant was paid €10 per hour and is owed €475. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00021682-003
The complainant detailed that she is owed compensation for working 97.5 hours on Sundays within the cognisable period. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00021682-003
The respondent did not attend. The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing, and in the circumstances, I find that their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00021682-003
Section 14 of the Act details that 14.— (1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely— ( a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or ( b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or ( c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or ( d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.
The respondent did not attend. From the evidence, it would appear that the Complainant was not compensated for Sunday working and that this complaint is, therefore, well-founded.
I am of the view that a 33% premium is an appropriate premium to apply in this instance and award the complainant €321.75. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00021682-004
The complainant detailed that she is owed for 4 public holiday entitlements during the cognisable period, (namely March, Easter, May and June) and that this amounted to a total of 36 hours. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00021682-004
The respondent did not attend. The Respondent did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the complaint. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing, and in the circumstances, I find that their non-attendance without any acceptable explanation to be unexplained in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00021682-004
Section 21 details that an employee should be entitled to the benefit of the public holiday as follows: “ (a) a paid day off on that day, (b) a paid day off within a month of that day, (c) an additional day of annual leave, (d) an additional day’s pay:
The respondent did not attend. I find that the complainant did not receive her entitlement during the cognisable period and that the claim is well founded and that the complainant is owed €360. |
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.
CA-00021682-001 I find that the complaint is well founded, and the respondent should pay €475 to the complainant. CA-00021682-003 I find that the complaint is well founded, and the respondent should pay €321.75 to the complainant. CA-00021682-004 I find that the complaint is well founded, and the respondent should pay €360 to the complainant.
|
Dated: 6th June 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, Sunday working, public holidays, respondent did not attend |