ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION & RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021098
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Property Assessor | Property Maintenance Organisation |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027590-002 | ||
CA-00027590-005 | ||
CA-00027590-009 | ||
CA-00027590-010 | ||
CA-00027590-011 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaints and dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints and dispute.
Background:
The complainant detailed that he had commenced employment on 28th December 2018 and that his role was to assess the condition of property for the respondent. The respondent did not attend. The complainant detailed that he had not received appropriate pay, rest periods, terms and conditions of employment and he was left with no alternative but to terminate his employment owing to the behaviour of the employer. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
As a preliminary issue, the complainant outlined his wish to correct the name of the respondent owing to new information which had come to his attention. Substantive Issue: The complainant detailed that he was on occassion required to assess up to 5 properties per day which might involve going from the North to the South of the country. Evidence was provided of outstanding monies owed including €1,335 for outstanding wages in addition to €50 for diesel and €3.40 for a toll. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
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:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. Preliminary Issue: Based on the evidence presented by the complainant I do not find the respondent prejudiced by the proposed amendment to the name of the respondent and allow same. Substantive Issue: The complainant provided evidence of monies which had not been paid to him. “ wages”, in relation to an employee, means any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including— ( a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and ( b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: Section 5(6) of the Act provides: — (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion. Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find that the sum of €1,388.40 was “properly payable” to the Complainant in respect of unpaid wages, expenses and allowances within the meaning of Section 5(6) of the Act on the termination of his employment. I find that the Respondent made an unlawful deduction from the Complainant’s wages contrary to Section 5 of the Act in respect of unpaid wages which were payable to him on the termination of his employment. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded and that the respondent should pay €1,388.40 gross to the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant detailed that he never received breaks during his employment as he was required to drive from the North to the South of the Country on a regular basis and no time was built into the day for him to take his breaks. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
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:
Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows: “Rests and intervals at work (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. (2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1). (3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour). (4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).” Section 25 of the Act requires an employer to maintain records of employees’ rest breaks and working time. Where it fails to keep such records, the burden of proving compliance with the provisions of the Act lies with the employer. The respondent did not attend. Having considered all the evidence accordingly I find that the claim is well founded and that the respondent failed to provide rest breaks during the cognisable period. I find the complaint well founded and order the respondent to pay the complainant €3,000. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
This complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant detailed that he did not receive his terms and conditions of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
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:
Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 states that an “employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee's employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the … terms of the employee's employment.”
The respondent did not attend. I must prefer the evidence of the complainant that the respondent has not met their obligations in providing the complainant with his terms and conditions of employment. I find the complaint well founded and order the respondent to pay the complainant €1,000. |
Summary of Worker’s Case:
The worker detailed that he raised significant concerns with his employer including the long hours that he had to work, but his employer told him that if he did not like it he could leave. He submitted an email on 31st March 2018 outlining all the concerns that he had, including the requirement for him to work without breaks, the failure to receive pay slips, the failure to receive appropriate pay and advised that he was left with no alternative but to resign. The complainant advised that he was available to meet with the respondent in an effort to resolve the issues but the respondent failed to engage with him |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer did not attend. The employer did not engage with the Workplace Relations Commission in relation to the dispute. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the employer 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:
S.I. No. 146/2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures) (Declaration) Order, 2000 sets out “general guidelines on the application of grievance and disciplinary procedures and the promotion of best practice in giving effect to such procedures”. Section 6 details that the “procedures for dealing with such issues reflecting the varying circumstances of enterprises/organisations, must comply with the general principles of natural justice and fair procedures which include: that employee grievances are fairly examined and processed” The employer did not attend the hearing. The worker advised of numerous grievances which he raised and which were neither fairly examined or processed. Due to the seriousness of these grievances, he was left with no option but to resign his position. Having heard the dispute I recommend that the employer pay the worker €1,500. |
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.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I find the complaint well founded and order the respondent to pay €1,388.40 gross to the complainant. I find the complaint well founded and order the respondent to pay the complainant €3,000. I find the complaint well founded and order the respondent to pay the complainant €1,000. I recommend that the employer pay the worker €1,500. |
Dated: December 2nd 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Breaks, dismissal, industrial relations act, terms and conditions, pay |