Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Supervisor

A Wholesaler

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00029752-001

17/07/2019

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00030227-001

13/08/2019

The complainant was suspended on full pay since June 14th 2019 but in the course of the suspension became unwell and was certified as being unfit for work by the GP.

She received a request from the respondent to submit weekly medical certificates to comply with its sick leave policy but was not paid in respect of the earlier period for which certificates were not submitted.

She then began to submit certificates.

Her second complaint relates to her working hours.

Her contract defines these as thirty-seven hours but her manager told her they were thirty-nine.

The complainant first submitted a medical certificate which covered the period from June 18th, 2019. She had been on suspension since June 14th.

The respondent wrote on June 20th pointing out the requirement for weekly certificates.

The complainant did not comply and the respondent wrote again on June 26th to remind her of the requirement and enclosing a copy of its sick leave policy.

A second certificate was submitted dated July 1st covering only the period July 2nd to July 30th.

At this stage the respondent wrote to her stating that she would not be receiving further sick pay as she had failed to comply with the policy. (She had received pay for the period June 18th to 30th).

The respondent’s policy is clear; it requires a medical certificate on the third day of absence and weekly thereafter and is at the discretion of the employer. It also requires certain details about the nature of the illness.

The complainant’s sick pay was only stopped after she failed to comply with the requirements of the scheme and there has been no breach of the Payment of Wages Act.

In relation to the complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, the complaint is misconceived.

The complainant has acknowledged on her complaint form that her working hours are thirty-nine per week and no breach of the Act arises.

I find the facts in the case to be as set out above.

The complainant has not made out any case that the sick leave payments she claims were wages ‘properly payable’ to her as required by the Payment of Wages Act.

The terms of the sick pay scheme were as set out in the respondent’s submission and the complainant confirmed that she had received the policy (even though she said she did not know the details of the scheme).

I find therefore that the respondent’s actions were in line with its sick leave policy

This complaint fails.

Similarly, the dispute as to whether the complainant actual hours are thirty seven or thirty nine is not one which arises under the Organisation of Working Time Act.

The complainant is a salaried employee and there is some variation in her hours. However, it is only when any such variation strays above the limits proscribed in the Act would a complaint be well founded.

This complaint also fails.

For the reasons set out above Complaint CA-00029752-001 (ADJ 23143) and Complaint CA-00030277-001 (ADJ 23746) are not upheld and each is dismissed.

Payment of Wages sick leave, working hours