ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021860
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Payroll Administrator | A Contract Cleaning company |
Complaint(s):
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-00028637-001 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00028637-002 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028637-003 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028637-004 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028637-005 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028637-006 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028637-007 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00028637-008 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00028637-009 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00028637-014 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00028637-015 | 22/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 | CA-00028637-016 | 22/05/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/03/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, 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 worked for the respondent for approximately 4 years. Towards the end of her maternity leave she felt pressurised to work in excess of what she was prepared to do. At a meeting convened with the respondent to discuss the matter the alleged behaviour of the respondent caused the complainant to consider her contract to have been terminated. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced work with the respondent in May 2014 and her employment was terminated on 25th February 2019. In January 2017 the complainant became unwell and had various tests carried out. She had a week’s holidays booked to take on 20th February but was unable to take them due to illness. These holidays had accrued since 2016. On 21st February she was admitted to hospital for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis. On Tuesday 28th February she was contacted by work and asked to complete the payroll for that month, which she did working from home as her doctor would not sign her as fit to work. The complainant repeatedly requested the respondent to get her position covered as she was too unwell to work. Despite this she was required to continue working and never received any payment for the hours completed while out sick. In September 2017, by agreement, the complainant returned to work part time on 3 days per week. Once again her hours were increased and by October she was working 16 days per month. This was not what the complainant had agreed to but, on many occasions, she was threatened that her job would be outsourced. Also once a month the complainant worked on a Saturday and Sunday to complete invoicing. More tasks kept being added to her work rather than taking account of her health. The complainant went on maternity leave at the end of October 2018. Prior to going on maternity leave the complainant had a series of meetings with management to ensure the smooth running of the job when she was away. It was agreed she would train a colleague in the position. The complainant was requested by management to log in each week for 2 hours to ensure that her replacement was completing the job as required. She was to email management each week with an update. In December 2018, while on maternity leave the complainant became unwell with Multiple Sclerosis and had to have treatment from 4th to 6th February 2019. On 6th February she received a text from the Managing Director (Mr B) to say that it was not working out with her replacement and that he wished to talk to the complainant about the situation. The complainant received a second call about the matter from another employee, Ms C. The complainant felt that she had no choice but to go back to the office to try and help out. She was assured she would only be required to attend 1 day per week. In spite of this she was put under enormous pressure to do additional work despite being unwell and on maternity leave. The complainant eventually contacted Mr B and the General Manager Ms D and Ms C to request a meeting in order to get the management to direct Ms C to stop contacting the complainant and pressing her to do work. The meeting took place on 25th February and was attended by the complainant and Mr B, Ms D and Ms C. At the meeting Ms C continued saying what she required the complainant to do. Despite the complainant refusing to complete more hours Mr B got extremely angry and shouted that all he gave a f**k about was his company to which the complainant replied ‘All I cared about was my baby and my health’. Mr B then roared at the complainant ‘I couldn’t give a f**k about your baby or your f**king health’. The complainant got extremely upset and told him that she couldn’t give a f**k about his company and left the room. In addition to being unfairly dismissed the complainant did not receive any holiday pay for 2017. She is owed holiday for 2018 as she was only paid for 8 days holidays. During 2017 the complainant was not paid any Bank Holidays while on sick leave from 28th February until 31st August ( 5 days). She has not been paid for any Public Holidays for the years 2018 – 2019 while on maternity leave. Also during maternity leave she completed 78 hours of work without pay. The complainant is claiming discrimination on the Family Status and Disability grounds including discriminatory dismissal. The complainant did not receive her minimum notice entitlement at the time of the dismissal. The complainant did not receive her entitlement to maternity leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant joined the Respondent Company in July 2014 on the Job Bridge national internship scheme. On the 1st of October 2014 the Respondent offered the Complainant a part time job as a cleaner to go alongside this. The Complainant signed a contract for this role on the 1st of October 2014. On the 13th of April 2014 the Respondent offered the Complainant a role as a Part Time Payroll Administrator, as she showed a strong aptitude for administration. The Complainant signed a contract for this role on the 13th of April 2014. The Respondent trained the Complainant in payroll as she had no prior experience. In January 2017 the Complainant became unwell. The Complainant was first certified unfit for work from the 21st February to the 27th February 2017. The medical certificate was due to expire on the 28th February 2017 and the Respondent contacted the Complainant on this date to ask if it was possible to complete the payroll for the month. The Respondent considered this proportionate given the Complainants medical certificate was up on this date. The Complainant agreed to work from home when she could. The Complainant then went on sick leave from February 27th 2017 to September 11th 2017. The Complainant disclosed to the Respondent on the 13th April 2017 by way of medical certificate from that date that she had been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. As part of the efforts made to accommodate the Complainant after discussion with the Complainant and her condition it was agreed that she could return to work on a reduced working week which included working a three day week and sometimes four days if required. The Respondent was happy to accommodate the Complainant, to work with her giving flexibility in terms of the hours she worked and allowing her to work from home also. This arrangement continued right up to when the Complainant commenced maternity leave on the 29th October 2018. During the Complainants maternity leave she would regularly drop into the office to socialize with staff members. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was on maternity for a period of four months prior to the incident which led to her resignation. The Respondent saw the Complainant almost every week due to her consistent visits to the Respondents office. On the 25th of February 2019 the Respondent requested the Complainant to come in for a meeting regarding her role. At this time the Complainant was on maternity leave. During the Complainants maternity leave her role was covered by a temporary staff member. The Complainant took it upon herself to log on to her work email at home whilst on maternity in an effort on the Complainants part to ensure her cover was doing the job correctly. The Respondent told the Complainant there was no need for this, she was on maternity leave but when the Complainant persisted they permitted the Complainant to do this if it made her feel better than her role was being properly managed in her absence. The Respondent submits that at no time did they ask the Complainant to do this, she was protective of her role and the system that she had built within the company. The purpose of the meeting on the 25th of February 2019 was to explore the possibility of the Complainant returning to work early from her maternity leave, to discuss her role and whether she required any assistance upon her return to work, if the Complainant was open to such suggestion. The Complainant’s cover had recently resigned and the Respondent was now facing difficulty. The Respondent was only open to this option as they had an excellent relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant frequently socialized with the Respondents MD and Head of Sales. The Respondent submits that at the meeting on the 25th February 2019, the conversation was going well and the Complainant was willing to come back to work as long as she could work from home. Towards the end of the conversation the Complainants replacement was explaining to the Complainant her new method of doing payroll. This was an amalgamation of the previously used four spreadsheets. The Complainant took issue with this and began to accuse the Respondent of asking her to do extra work. The Respondent attempted to explain that this would actually be less work. He explained he had to think about the needs of the business, it was in his interest to do so, that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Complainants return to work, what arrangements were feasible and how they could make it work best. The Complainant began to shout “I don’t care about your f**king company, I have to think about my health and the health of my baby.” The Respondent concedes that the MD said “I couldn’t give a f**k about your baby or your f**king health”. Such language is regrettable, was said in the heat of the moment and is taken out of context. In considering the context, the Respondent submits that the Complainant and the MD were known for their colourful language they used in their discussions with each other. They had a good relationship and the bad language was a method of banter between them. All in attendance at said meeting were taken aback by the heated exchange that had just taken place. The Respondent decided in the circumstances that the Complainant may have needed some time to cool off after what had just occurred and did not contact the Complainant for a number of days. The following evening the Complainant dropped off her printer to the office. However, the respondent again felt she needed more time to cool off and decided not to contact her in fear of agitating her any further. The Respondent felt obliged to advertise a job vacancy for an accounts assistant on the 28th February who could help out on three days a week, with a view of making the Complainant’s return to work easier. The Respondent genuinely believed that due to the longstanding relationship that matters would be resolved and the Complainant would return to work. A number of days after the meeting on the 25th February, the Respondent requested a member of staff with whom the Complainant was friendly to call to her house to ask if she was willing to put the incident behind them and come back to work. She was still extremely angry at that time and indicated that she did not intend to return. The Complainant appears to state that she was dismissed on the 25th February 2019 however the Respondent did not suspect that the heat of the moment exchanges amounted to a resignation on the Complainants behalf. Notwithstanding this the Respondent received a letter dated 11th March from the Complainants solicitor initiating legal proceedings against them. At this point the Respondent accepted that the employment relationship had broken down and as any reasonable employer would, they accepted the letter as a letter of resignation. The Respondent was surprised by this letter as, although the latest exchange between the parties was a heated one, the Complainant never tried to address issues internally either through the company’s grievance procedure and/or the Personal and Sexual harassment policy and/or the Bullying Prevention policy. All of these options could have been explored by the Complainant however instead it is evident that the complainant went straight to her solicitor and would rather be compensated for this alleged discrimination claim. CA-00028637-014 Employment Equality Act 1998 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Employment Equality Act 1998 regarding her pregnancy, dismissal for discriminatory reasons and family status. The Respondent submits that the Claimant has not set out a prima facie case of discrimination. The Respondent submits that the Claimant has not named a relevant comparator not even hypothetically. Thus as a result has failed to demonstrate how the Respondent treated her any less favourably to another colleague in a similar situation. The Respondent submits that the Claimant should also be able to show that but for their link to two of the nine grounds of discrimination they would not have been treated any less favourably. Therefor the Claimant should be able to establish a causal link between her disability and family status and the discriminatory act. The Respondent submits that the MD’s words to the Claimant were in retaliation of her poor and disrespectful attitude towards each person in attendance on that day and those words were in no way in relation to that that she had a disability or the fact that she had a new baby. Therefore, it is submitted that the Claimant cannot establish any clear causal link between the any alleged discriminatory act and the definitions under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2001. CA-00028637-001 Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that her Employer had not paid her or has paid less than the amount due to her. The Complainant has specified that this includes no pay from the 1st of November 2018. The Complainant is also seeking an unspecified 78 hours of work at €12.40 per hour. The Respondent refers to €250 Bank transfer to the Complainant. In respect of this issue, the Complainant may only claim for wages due from the 21st November 2018, giving the six month time limit under Section 6(4) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which expressly states “A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in a case where the rights commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable”.
CA-00028637-002 Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that she did not receive the appropriate pay in lieu of notice. The Claimant has specified that she is seeking 2 weeks’ notice. The Respondent submits that the Claimant resigned from her employment and would not be entitled to notice that she did not give.
CA-00028637-003 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was required to work more than the maximum number of hours. The Respondent submits that the Claimant did not give a reference period for this claim. The Respondent was never required to work more than the maximum number of hours under the OWTA 1997. The Claimant worked 3 days and occasionally 4 days a week on her return to work in September 2017 right up to the time she commenced maternity leave.
CA-00028637-004 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she not receive her paid holiday / annual leave entitlement. In respect of this issue, the Claimant may only claim for wages due from the 21st November 2018, giving the six month time limit under Section 6(4) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Since the 29th October 2018, the Claimant was on maternity leave and would have accrued annual leave during that period. All annual leave accrued during this period would have been allowed to be taken upon her return to work within a period agreed by management.
CA-00028637-005 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she did not receive her public holiday entitlement. The Respondent concedes from the 21st November 2018 right up until the date of resignation which the Respondent took to be the 11th March 2019, the Claimant is entitled to the bank holidays during this time which is four days, Christmas Day, St. Stephens Day, New Year’s Day and St. Patrick’s Day. The Respondent had anticipated on providing the Claimant with all the public holidays she had accrued during her maternity leave as time off in lieu or alternatively payment for those days upon her return to work. CA-00028637-006 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for annual leave upon leaving. The Respondent submits that this claim is linked to CA-00028637-004.
CA-00028637-007 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for public holidays upon leaving. The Respondent submits that this claim is linked to CA-00028637-005.
CA-00028637-008 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive a statement of her main terms. The Respondent submits that the Claimant signed a statement of main terms on the 14th of July 2014 and the 1st of October 2014.
CA-00028637-009 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive notification in writing that her terms of employment were changed. The Respondent submits that the Claimant signed a statement of main terms on the 14th of July 2014 and the 1st of October 2014. The Respondent submits that the Claimant has not had another role since the 1st of October 2014. CA-00028637-015 Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1998 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that she did not receive her statutory minimum notice. The Respondent submits that the Complainant resigned from her employment and would not be entitled to notice that she did not give. The Respondent submits that this claim is a duplicate of CA-00028637-002 and the Complainant is attempting double recovery of the same claim. CA-00028637-016 Maternity Protection Act 1994 The Claimant has taken a claim under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive her entitlement to maternity leave. An employee can return to work by way of agreement four weeks after the date in which she gave birth and as a result the Claimant has received her entitlement under the minimum period of maternity leave. It was merely proposed to the Claimant that she could return to work on a shorter working week, a proposal that was accepted by the Claimant. The Respondent submits that this claim is not well founded, and to find that it is would show scant regard for agreements that are made between employers and employees, some arrangements can be suitable to both parties and where they do not affect the employees’ rights they should be upheld where practicable
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00028637-014Employment Equality Act, 1998 The complainant is claiming discrimination on the Family Status and Disability grounds including discriminatory dismissal. In summary, her position is that the respondent required her to work more hours than she was able to do in the context of her disability and to work during her maternity leave. This was compounded by the conduct of the Managing Director at a meeting on 25th February 2019. I note that this meeting was convened at the request of the complainant, to deal with her issues regarding, what she perceived to be, giving her more work than she was capable of doing on health grounds, and more than she had agreed to do while on maternity leave. She was anxious to ensure that she was able to avail of her statutory entitlement to maternity leave, albeit that she was willing to work a maximum of one day per week. The attitude of the Managing Director (Mr B) to this entitlement was evidenced in so far as he made it clear to the complainant that he had no regard for her health or family, where they clashed with his view of what was best for the business. The comments made by Mr B were of such severity that the complainant could reasonably conclude that the respect required between both parties to sustain the employment relationship had been broken. Mr B, in evidence, said he could have called around and sought to remedy the problem but decided not to. The prompt advertising of a post, if not the complainant's actual post, one sufficiently similar to cause her to believe it to be hers, cemented the end of the relationship. In relation to the use of the company’s grievance procedure and/or the Personal and Sexual harassment policy and/or the Bullying Prevention policy this must be seen in light of the fact that the subject of the complainant’s grievance or complaint was the Managing Director of the company. In order for her to have confidence in such a procedure, she would have required some reassurance, and the employer would be expected to behave proactively in that regard. I note no contact was made with the complainant offering the above mentioned procedures as a mechanism for resolving the altercation. Instead, the respondent advertised her role, or one very similar, immediately. The respondent in evidence stated that the Respondent did not suspect that the heat of the moment exchanges amounted to a resignation on the Complainants behalf. However, the contact with the complainant by text by another member of staff indicated that the respondent believed the employment relationship was over. The complainant sought the meeting to seek to have her rights in relation to working within the period of her maternity leave upheld i.e. that she could not be required to work in excess of what she agreed. Based on the conduct of the respondent at the meeting she could reasonably believe that her rights in this regard were being disregarded. The conduct of the respondent in that meeting was so unreasonable that it amounted to constructive dismissal. The subsequent actions in advertising a post similar to the complainant’s confirmed this and I therefore conclude that the complainant was discriminatorily dismissed on the Family Status ground. There is no evidence that the complainant was required to work more than the weekly limit agreed between her and the respondent in relation to her disability and therefore I do not believe she was discriminated against on that ground. CA-00028637-001 Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that her Employer had not paid her or has paid less than the amount due to her. The Complainant is seeking 78 hours of work at €12.40 per hour worked during her maternity leave. In respect of this issue, The Respondent has argued that the Complainant may only claim for wages due from the 21st November 2018, giving the six month time limit under Section 6(4) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 which expressly states; “A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in a case where the rights commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable”. It was clear from the evidence presented by the respondent at the hearing that the intention was to pay her money due in respect of any work during maternity leave on her return to work after maternity leave. The complainant therefore was not aware that she was not going to be paid this money until after the employment relationship terminated. I therefore am satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant from making the complaint within the six month period. The complaint is therefore well founded and the complainant is due payment for 78 hours worked.
CA-00028637-002 Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that she did not receive the appropriate pay in lieu of notice. This complaint is more appropriately dealt with under claim CA-00028637-015 under the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 and therefore is not well founded. CA-00028637-003 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was required to work more than the maximum number of hours. No evidence was presented of the complainant working in excess of the hours permitted under the Act and therefore the complaint is not well founded.
CA-00028637-004 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she not receive her paid holiday / annual leave entitlement. The Labour Court has stated in Waterford County Council v O'Donoghue that the Court can only look at the statutory period set out in the legislation ie 1 April to 31 March when assessing the leave entitlement. It also stated in another decision , Loughnane Joinery v Bodkin, that an infringement of the Act in relation to annual leave does not occur until the end of a six month period to which the leave year relates ie 30 September of that year. Accordingly the leave year in question in this case ran until 31 March 2019 and as the complaint was made before September 2019, it is in time. In relation to leave untaken due to certified illness the Act states as follows;
The complaint is well founded and the respondent must pay the complainant in respect of all untaken annual leave, including the leave carried forward into 2017.
CA-00028637-005 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she did not receive her public holiday entitlement. The Respondent has conceded that the Complainant is entitled to four days, Christmas Day, St. Stephens Day, New Year’s Day and St. Patrick’s Day. The Respondent stated in evidence that they intended providing the Complainant with all the public holidays she had accrued during her maternity leave as time off in lieu or alternatively payment for those days upon her return to work. The complaint is therefore well founded.
CA-00028637-006 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for annual leave upon leaving. This claim is linked to CA-00028637-004 and cannot be compensated a second time.
CA-00028637-007 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for public holidays upon leaving. This claim is linked to CA-00028637-005 and cannot be compensated a second time.
CA-00028637-008 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive a statement of her main terms. The Respondent submits that the Complainant signed a statement of main terms on the 14th of July 2014 and the 1st of October 2014. I note that the complainant signed a contract of employment containing the terms and conditions of employment. I therefore conclude that this claim is not well-founded.
CA-00028637-009 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive notification in writing that her terms of employment were changed. The Respondent submits that the Complainant signed a statement of main terms on the 14th of July 2014 and the 1st of October 2014. The Respondent submits that the Complainant has not had another role since the 1st of October 2014. I note that the complainant signed a contract of employment containing the terms and conditions of employment and the only alteration to this was the reduction in working days associated with her disability. No evidence was given that this change was intended to be permanent or indeed that she was prevented from resuming full time work if that suited her. I therefore conclude that this claim is not well-founded. . CA-00028637-015 Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1998 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 claiming that she did not receive her statutory minimum notice. The Respondent submits that the Complainant resigned from her employment and would not be entitled to notice that she did not give. The Respondent submits that this claim is a duplicate of CA-00028637-002 and the Complainant is attempting double recovery of the same claim. I find that as the complainant was in the continuous service of her employer for two years or more, but less than five years, the complainant is entitled to two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice in accordance with the Act.
CA-00028637-016 Maternity Protection Act 1994 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Maternity Protection Act 1994 claiming that she did not receive her entitlement to maternity leave. I have dealt with this claim under CA-00028637-014 and cannot compensate a second time. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 9 of that Act.
Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 30 and 31 of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
CA-00028637-001 Payment of Wages Act 1991 I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €967.20 CA-00028637-002 Payment of Wages Act 1991 This is a duplicate complaint and therefore not well founded CA-00028637-003 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 I find that this complaint is not well founded CA-00028637-004 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 I find that this complaint is well founded and order respondent to pay the complainant in respect of all untaken annual leave, including the leave carried forward into 2017. CA-00028637-005 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The complaint is well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complaint 4 days’ pay in respect of public holidays due. CA-00028637-006 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for annual leave upon leaving. This claim is linked to CA-00028637-004 and cannot be compensated a second time. CA-00028637-007 Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 The Complainant has taken a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 claiming that she was not compensated for public holidays upon leaving. This claim is linked to CA-00028637-005 and cannot be compensated a second time. CA-00028637-008 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 This claim is not well-founded. CA-00028637-009 Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 This claim is not well-founded. CA-00028637-014Employment Equality Act, 1998 This complaint is well-founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant €18,500 (one year’s pay) in compensation CA-00028637-015 Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1998 This complaint is well founded and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €712 being equal to two weeks’ pay. CA-00028637-016 Maternity Protection Act 1994 I have dealt with this claim under CA-00028637-014 and cannot compensate a second time.
|
Dated: 18th August 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry