Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An employee

Facilities Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00021293-001

23/08/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00021293-002

23/08/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00021293-003

23/08/2018

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was told there was no work. The Complainant was taken into the employment as a Plumber but failed to produce his qualifications. There was work for a Plumber. The Respondent denies that he laid off the worker, and stated that he could not make contact with the complainant and the complainant abandoned his job, taking company property in the form of a mobile phone.

CA-00021293-001

The general right to redundancy payment and definition is contained in Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 as follows:

“an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if [for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned] the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to –

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed,

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforth be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforth be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee concerned is not sufficiently qualified or trained”.

In this instant case, dismissal is in dispute.   The Complainant stated that he had been laid off by phone call from a Ms L in the office who told him there was no work for him. The Respondent denies this, stating that there was work for a Plumber but the Complainant did not produce his qualifications.   The Respondent also said that for a 3 week period, the Complainant was uncontactable.   I find that the situation does not fit the definition of redundancy as quoted above and I find the Complainant’s claim to be not well founded.

CA-00021293-002

The Complaint is that the Respondent deducted €160 total from the wages of the Complainant.

The Respondent’s case is that the Complainant was paid €23.60 per hour as a qualified Plumber but when he did not produce his qualifications, the rate had to be reduced.

Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides that an employer shall not make a deduction from the wages of an employee unless the deduction is required by statute, or by virtue of a term in the employees contract or the employee has given prior consent. In this instant case, none of the requirements were met and I find the Complainant’s complaint to be well founded. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €160.

CA-00021293-003

Dismissal is in dispute.   The Complainant contends that his contract was breached by virtue of deductions from wages and the lack of work and alleged requirement to work as a contractor. All of these allegations are denied by the Respondent. I note the Respondent operates a second contracting company and I accept the evidence that work was being offered in that context. I do not find that the Complainant was dismissed from his employment and his complaint is not well founded.