ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016178
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Car Valet | Car Dealership |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. | CA-00021010-002 | 05/08/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00021010-003 | 05/08/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00021010-005 | 05/08/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/01/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act and Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, 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:
The Complainant contends that he did not receive appropriate pay or minimum rates as pertaining to his job valeting cars. He further contends that he did not receive payment for annual leave accrued when his employment ended. He also contends that he did not receive written terms of conditions of employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant contends that he did not receive appropriate pay or minimum rates as pertaining to his job valeting cars. He further contends that he did not receive payment for annual leave accrued when his employment ended. He also contends that he did not receive written terms of conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent states that the Complainant was paid €350 for 37.5 hours per week and this equates to €9.33 per hour. He agrees that some annual leave accrued to the Complainant, and he agrees that the Complainant did not get written terms of employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00021010-002 |
The Complainant has submitted his complaint that he did not receive minimum wage to the Labour Inspectorate. In accordance with the Minimum Wage Act 2000, I am precluded from investigating the same complaint. I therefore decline jurisdiction in the matter and must find his complaint to me to be not well founded. CA-00021010-003 The Complainant has demonstrated that annual leave accrued by him was not paid by the Respondent. I have calculated that this amounts to 8% of the hours worked in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. I note and accept the Respondent’s evidence that some 3 days were taken. I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €364 provided this sum has not been awarded by the Labour Inspectorate. CA-00021010-005 It is common case that the Complainant was not furnished with written terms of conditions of employment. This is a direct breach of Section 3 of the Act. I find the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €350 compensation. |
Decision:
CA-00021010-002 |
I decline jurisdiction in the matter and must find his complaint to me to be not well founded. CA-00021010-003 I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €364 provided this sum has not been awarded by the Labour Inspectorate. CA-00021010-005 I find the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €350 compensation. |
Dated: 7th March 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham