ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009103
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Cleaner | A Contract Cleaning Company |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/DisputeReference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00011950-001 | 16/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00011950-002 | 16/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00011950-004 | 16/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00011950-005 | 16/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011950-006 | 16/06/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00011950-007 | 16/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/02/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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/dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints/dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints/dispute.
Background:
The complainant was employed between September 9th 2016 and February 2nd 2017 at an initial rate of €9.50 per hour. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Complaint CA-00011950-001 and 002. The complainant was entitled to, but did not receive payment in accordance with the Employment Regulation Order. (ERO) for his sector. His pay was increased to €10.00 from January 27th 2017 but this should have been €10.05 Complaint CA-00011950-004; The complainant says that he was not paid the correct rate of pay for public holidays. Complaint CA-00011950-005 relates to Annual leave he claims is due. He worked for four months and factoring in a period of sick leave he accumulated 51.2 hours leave. Complaint CA-00011950-006 is a claim for the payment of notice on termination of the employment. Complaint CA-00011950-007 is a claim for Sunday premium. He says that he worked only one or two. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent attended the hearing and offered very poor explanation for the shortfall in the hourly rate and in general. He disputed the extent of the work claimed to have been undertaken by the complainant but did not have any records to offer in evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The claims made in this case are for relatively small sums, an exception being the annual leave although that too is relatively small. While the respondent disagreed with the claims being made by the complainant he did not have the required employment records to support his case. There were four public holidays for which the complainant was not paid. The circumstances on which the employment relationship came to an end were contested. The complainant says the respondent stopped offering him work while the respondent says that the complainant was no longer available for work. While there was no complaint regarding the manner of the termination it was not possible to disentangle these versions of what happened sufficient to reach a safe conclusion it, but on balance I prefer the complainant’s version of events. An obligation falls on an employer to ensure that any termination is recorded and executed in a business-like and more importantly a fair manner although fortunately for the respondent nothing turns on it in the current case. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute 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.
I uphold Complaint CA-00011950-001 and 002 and award the complainant €290. I uphold Complaint CA-00011950-004 and award the complainant €312.00 I uphold Complaint CA-00011950-005 award the complainant €515.00 I uphold Complaint CA-00011950-006 and award the complainant one week’s wages in the amount of €402.00. I do not I uphold Complaint CA-00011950-006 as there was insufficient proof to support the complaint. |
Dated: 19th March 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
|