Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Cleaner

Contract cleaning company

Representatives

North Lenister Citizens Information Service CLG

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00027442-002

02/04/2019

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

CA-00029376-001

01/07/2019

The Complainant started working for the Respondent on the 20th of June 2018.

She worked as a cleaner for the Respondent in six different medical centres.

She worked five days per week Monday to Friday on average 4.5 hours per day.

This equated to circa 22 hours a week.   She was paid fortnightly.

Her employment ended on the 1st of February 2019.

CA-00027442-002

The Complainant’s case is that she did not receive notice of the termination of her employment and she was due one week’s wages.

Her evidence was that on the 1st of February 2019 the respondent informed her that he had a new work location arranged for her. She was introduced to a new employee and asked to train her in.   She did so for three days. Her evidence was that she contacted the Respondent seeking details of her new work location. She did not receive any response from him. The Complainant’s representatives further wrote to the Respondent on two occasions and they received no response.

CA-00029376-001

This case was in relation to failure to pay wages for the last two weeks of employment. The Complainant submitted that the last day of employment was the 1st of February 2019. She submitted the last payment of wages was on the 18th of January 2019.   The Complainant submitted she was due wages for the 21st to the 25th of January 2019 which was 23 hours and the 28th of January 2019 to the 1st of February 2019 which was 20.5 hours.   The Complainant was paid €10.40 per hour.

CA-00027442-002

The representative for the respondent indicated that dismissal was not in dispute. The Respondents case was that it had met with the Complainant on many times and discussed issues regarding a drop in standards at all sites. It had discussed issues regarding poor timekeeping, not adhering to a schedule of cleaning, poor standards of cleaning, poor personal appearance at work. The Respondent showed written complaints it had received from its Clients to the Complainant.

The Respondent’s supervisor had site visits with the Complainant almost daily.

The Respondent informed the Complainant that it would be replacing her as there was no improvement in her duties.   Its case was that the Complainant accepted same.

The Respondent submitted that they wrote to the Complainant advising that the end of January would be her finish date. The Respondent’s case was that the Complainant was given her notice.

CA-00029376-001

The Respondent disputed the Complainant was owed any wages. Its case was that the Complainant’s time sheets for January 2019 overstated the hours that she worked by at least 30%. It stated she often didn’t turn up for work. They also submitted that the Complainant removed a hoover which was worth €150.00 and cleaning supplies worth €70.00 from one of the surgeries. This amounted to €220.00.

The Respondent submitted a text message from another employee as evidence that the Complainant had admitted to a work colleague that she had taken two hoovers in part payment of wages that were due to her.

I have considered the evidence presented to me both orally and in writing.

I have reviewed the Complainant’s written evidence submitted to me. She provided payslips and her bank statement. The last date of payment as per her bank statement by the Respondent was the 18th of January 2019.

The Complainant gave direct evidence.   The Respondent was represented by a member of the Respondents Accounts and Payroll Department. This person did not deal directly with the Complainant but had instructions from the Respondents owner. He did not attend to give direct evidence. Neither did the Complainant’s supervisor.

CA-00027442-002

The purpose of notice is for the Complainant to find alternative employment.

The Complainant disputes that she received the letter of the Respondent dated 9th January 2019.  

I prefer the evidence of the Complainant.

CA-00029376-001

The Complainant was paid fortnightly in arrears. The Complainant gave evidence as to working 23 hours on the week 21st – 25th January 2019 and 20.5 hours on the week 28th January 2019 – 1st February 2019.

The Respondent did not provide any evidence to dispute same. It disputed that the Complainant overstated her work hours but could not provide evidence to justify same.

The Payment of Wages Act governs the method of payment of wages. It protects workers against unlawful deductions of wages properly payable to them.

I accept that the Complainant was not paid for the last two weeks of her employment with the Respondent. The issue of the hoovers is not within my remit.   There is an allegation that they were taken after the employment had ended. Even if I was satisfied that the Complainant had taken these, the required terms of Section 5(2) the Payment of Wages Act were not complied by the Respondent.

CA-00027442-002

I find the case well founded. I award the Complainant one week’s nett wages of €241.60 being the notice due to her.  

CA-00027442-001

I find the case well founded. I award the Complainant two weeks wages of €452.40 gross which is taxable in the normal manner.

Notice. Wages properly payable.