Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

General Operative

Manufacturing Company

Representatives

In Person

Rebecca De Groot Peninsula

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-00030363-001

19/08/2019

The complainant made a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission seeking adjudication under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The complainant submits that he is owed three days wages and two days annual leave which the respondent has failed to pay him.

The respondent rejects the claim that the two days annual leave are owed to the claimant and submits that they are entitled to deduct three days pay worked on the basis that the claimant did not work his full notice period as required, the result of which was increased costs to the respondent to cover the shifts which the claimant did not work.

The respondent is relying on the paragraph within the Employee Handbook, “Termination of Employment Without Giving Notice, Section A, which deals with the termination of employment as follows: “If you terminate your employment without giving notice or working the required period of notice you will have an amount equal to any additional costs of covering your duties during the notice period not worked deducted from any termination pay due to you”.

The claimant was employed by the respondent from the 11th of February 2019 to 26th of August 2019. He claims he gave notice of his intention to finish his employment with the respondent on 21st June 2019. He attended for work on Monday 24th of June, Tuesday 25th of June and Wednesday 26th June 2019.

Due to health issues the claimant was not in a position to attend work on Thursday 27th of June and 28th June respectively.

His claim is that he was not paid for the three days he worked, and he was not paid two days annual leave which he was owed.

He submits that he attempted to resolve the issue of monies owed with the respondent but to no avail.

The claimant was employed from the 11th of February 2019 to 26th June 2019.

On 24th June 2019 he informed his Supervisor that he was leaving the organisation. During the notice period, the claimant worked Monday 24th of June, Tuesday 25th of June and Wednesday 26th of June 2019.

The claimant did not present for work on Thursday 27th of June and Friday 28th of June 2019 resulting in an increased cost to cover those shifts.

As per the Employee Handbook “If you terminate your employment without giving notice or working the required period of notice you will have an amount equal to any additional costs of covering your duties during the notice period not worked deducted from any termination pay due to you”.

The respondent submits that the claimant breached his Contract by:

1)      Not giving written notice and not following formal procedures as per the Employee Handbook

2)      Not giving sufficient notice, one week, as per his statement of main terms

3)      Not working two of the five days during the notice period

Complaint seeking adjudication under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

I have considered all of the evidence in this case, both written and verbal.

Pay is a fundamental element of the Contract of Employment and is based on the premise that one receives remuneration for work done and for holiday pay accrued as a result of the work done.

In the instant case there is no dispute between the claimant and the respondent that the claimant did not receive pay in respect of three days worked in June 2019.

The position of the respondent is that they were entitled to withhold payment to the claimant as per the Employee Handbook paragraph, “Termination of Employment Without Giving Notice, Section A” as previously referred to.

I believe that the position adopted by the company is not tenable in the context of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

McGivern vs Irish National Insurance Company Ltd, PS / 1982 EAT stated that “Remuneration is not mere payment for work done but is what the doer expects to get as a result of the work he does insofar as what he expects to get is quantified in terms of money”

I must also consider the issue as to whether or not the claimant is entitled to receive payment for two days annual leave as part of his claim.

There is no agreement on this point between the claimant and the respondent. There was a clear lack of evidence adduced from either side in respect to this issue at the hearing other than the claimant stating that he was entitled to two days annual leave which he claims he did not avail of during his period of employment.

The respondent asserts that the claimant has received his full entitlement to annual leave during his period of employment.

As previously stated, no additional evidence was adduced in respect of the annual leave issue during the hearing.

In the circumstances of the instant case I have concluded that on the balance of probability, and the approach of the respondent to the termination of the claimant’s employment, that I prefer the evidence of the claimant in respect of annual leave to that of the respondent.

For the reasons outlined above I find that the claim is well founded and as a consequence, I order the respondent to pay the claimant a sum of €383.20 which is equivalent to three days pay and two days annual leave.

Payment of Wages