ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019112
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Sous Chef | A Hotel |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-001 | 11/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-002 | 11/01/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-003 | 11/01/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/09/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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:
These claims were received on the 11th of January 2019 thus cognisable period for these claims’ dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. I proceeded to a hearing of these matters on the 23rd of September 2019. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-001 | 11/01/2019 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that He did not get a daily rest period. He did not receive his statutory rest breaks during his employment and deductions were made from his wages for these rest breaks. He states that there was no cover provided to allow him to take his rest breaks. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that The complainant was employed by them from 8th of May 2017 to 12th of July 2018 on which date he resigned his employment, The complainant did receive his breaks and in addition was permitted to take vaping breaks as often as he wished. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 11 contains the relevant provision in relation to the entitlement to daily rest breaks. These claims were received on the 11th of January 2019 thus the cognisable period for these claims dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. The complainant in the present case did not return to work after the 12th of July 2018. Request to extend the time limit The Complainant when asked about the reason for the delay in submitting his claim stated that he was unaware of time limits and had taken advice from Citizens Information. Decision on extension to the time limit In deciding whether to allow an extension of time I refer to the Labour Court in the Cementation Skanska V Carroll DWT0342 which stated, “ in considering if reasonable cause exists it is for the complainant to show that there are reasons which both explains the delay and afford an excuse for the delay…In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard but it must be applied to the facts and the circumstances known to the complainant at the material time” I find that the Complainant in the present case has not put forward any convincing case to convince me extend the time limit. Accordingly, I have decided not to grant the extension to the time limit. The period that may be investigated dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. The complainant in the present case submitted his resignation on the 12th of July 2018. The complainant did not return to work after the 12th of July 2018 and accordingly did not work any hours during the cognisable period of the complaint between the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. Accordingly, I find that this part of the claim was out of time and that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Accordingly, I find that this part of the claim is out of time and that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-002 | 11/01/2019 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that He was required to work more than the maximum permitted number of hours and that he worked in excess of 60 hrs per week throughout his employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant Did not work in excess of 48 hours per week |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 15 contains the relevant provision in relation to working more the prescribed number of weekly working hours. These claims were received on the 11th of January 2019 thus cognisable period for these claims’ dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. The complainant in the present case did not return to work after the 12th of July 2018. Request to extend the time limit The Complainant when asked about the reason for the delay in submitting his claim stated that he was unaware of time limits and had taken advice from Citizens Information. Decision on extension to the time limit In deciding whether to allow an extension of time I refer to the Labour Court in the Cementation Skanska V Carroll DWT0342 which stated, “ in considering if reasonable cause exists it is for the complainant to show that there are reasons which both explains the delay and afford an excuse for the delay…In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard but it must be applied to the facts and the circumstances known to the complainant at the material time” I find that the Complainant in the present case has not put forward any convincing case to convince me extend the time limit. Accordingly, I have decided not to grant the extension to the time limit. The period that may be investigated dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. The complainant in the present case submitted his resignation on the 12th of July 2018. The complainant did not return to work after the12th of July 2018 and accordingly did not work any hours between the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. Accordingly, I find that this part of the claim was out of time and that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Accordingly, I find that this part of the claim is out of time and that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00024948-003 | 11/01/2019 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that He did not receive his paid holiday/annual leave entitlement He states that during his employment his pre-requested annual leave was granted but was then rescinded due to staff shortages and that the payment was made to him for this leave without any break given. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that The complainant received all of his annual leave entitlements. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 19 is the relevant provision in relation to Annual Leave entitlements. These claims were received on the 11th of January 2019 thus cognisable period for these claims’ dates from the 12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019. The complainant in the present case submitted his resignation on the 12th of July 2018. The complainant did not return to work after the 12th of July 2018. In relation to Annual Leave entitlements, the cognisable period of the complaint (12th of July 2018 to the 11th of January 2019) encompasses the 2018 and 2019 annual leave year. The complainant at the hearing stated that his complaint in relation to annual leave related to his request to take two weeks annual leave from 20th of June 2018 but he stated that he was only permitted to take one week. He then stated that the two weeks were in fact granted but that it would have been impossible for him to take the two weeks as it would have meant leaving only one chef in the kitchen due to staffing levels. The respondent advised the hearing that the complainant had received all of his annual leave entitlements and provided documentary evidence of same to the hearing. The complainant advised the hearing that he did not dispute this and stated that he had no issue in respect of receiving his annual leave entitlements or payment in lieu of annual leave or in respect of accrued annual leave and stated that he had been paid for all of his annual leave entitlements. On the basis of the information submitted, I am satisfied that the complainant did receive his annual leave entitlements Accordingly based on the totality of the evidence adduced here I find this claim to be not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find this claim to be not well founded. |
Dated: 19th February 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Orla Jones
Key Words:
|