ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024733

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Social Care Worker	A Community Programme

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-00031413-001	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00031413-002	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00031413-003	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-004	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-005	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012	CA-00031413-006	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-007	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-008	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-009	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012	CA-00031413-010	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-011	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-012	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-013	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00031413-014	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994	CA-00031413-018	03/10/2019
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012	CA-00031413-019	03/10/2019

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/12/2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

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:

The Complainant is a Social Care Worker who was employed by the Respondent since 29th January 2018. His employment was terminated by the Respondent on 1st June 2019. On foot of this termination he lodged 16 complaints with the WRC under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulation 2012 – S.I. No. 36/2012, the {European Communities (Organisation of Working Time){mobile Staff in Civil Aviation} Regulations, 2006 S.I. No. 507 of 2006 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Respondent is a community programme which went into liquidation in June 2019.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

CA – 00031413-001 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that throughout his employment he did not receive any premium payment for Sunday working. He submitted that his hourly rate was €15 and that this was what was paid to him when rostered for Sunday working.

CA – 00031413-002 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submitted that he had not received his final payment at the time of the termination of his employment. He submitted that when he first commenced employment he had no issues relating to his pay but that from May 2018 onwards there were regular issues. He submitted that he and his colleagues regularly received emails from the Respondent advising that the employer would not be able to meet the payroll. He submitted that the situation worsened over time and that on occasion he only received 10% or 20% of wages due on time. He submitted that he was owed for month’s salary.

CA – 00031413-003 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant submitted that he had not received payment in lieu of notice at the termination of his employment. He submitted that his employment was terminated, that soon after the business went into liquidation and that he did not receive the notice payment due to him at that time of the termination of his employment. He also submitted that this was part of an ongoing problem with payment of wages by the Respondent.

CA – 00031413-004 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he did not get daily rest periods while employed with the Respondent. He described how he worked a 24 - hour shift (from 10 am to 10 am) with sleepover operating from 10pm to 6 am. He submitted that this sleep was regularly broken, particularly when managing challenging clients. He described how he often had to do 2 or 3 such shifts in a row due to staff shortages without the 11- hour rest period being applied.

CA – 00031413-005 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that due to staff shortages he was often a “lone worker” and in these circumstances could only get breaks throughout the day if an opportunity arose. He submitted that on some occasions he did not get any break.

CA – 00031413-006 Complaint under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulation 2012 – S.I. No. 36/2012

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive his breaks.

CA – 00031413-007 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that the roster was set out on a monthly basis and that it was not unusual to be rostered for week 1 running straight into week 2, leaving no extended break during the period i.e. week 1 (3 x 24-hour shifts) followed directly by week 2 (3 x 24-hour shifts).

CA – 00031413-008 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he normally worked between 45 and 55 hours per week. He submitted that as there were significant staff shortages he was often required to do additional shifts, resulting in hours worked in excess of the permitted 48-hour average.

CA – 00031413-009 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive his paid annual leave entitlement in accordance with the provisions of this legislation. He submitted that he had 40 hours annual leave outstanding at the time of termination of his employment and that he had not been paid for the leave outstanding.

CA – 00031413-0010 [European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations, S.I. No. 5007 of 2006

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive his paid annual leave entitlement in accordance with the provisions of this legislation.

CA – 00031413-0011 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive his public holiday entitlement in accordance with the provisions of this legislation and that he did not receive compensation for public holiday entitlement lost on leaving the employment of the Respondent.

CA – 00031413-0012 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-009

CA – 00031413-0013 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-011

CA – 00031413-0014 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he had not been granted his annual leave entitlement in respect of the first 13 weeks of carers leave.

CA – 00031413-0018 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994

The Complainant submitted that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms of employment.

CA – 00031413-0019 Complaint under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulation 2012 – S.I. No. 36/2012

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent was not keeping statutory employment records in relation to working time in accordance with the requirement of this legislation.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

CA – 00031413-001 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was paid a flat rate for Sunday working. The Respondent clarified the financial difficulties experienced and the challenges faced in relation to meeting normal payroll obligations. In this context the Respondent submitted that the organisation could not make additional premium payments.

CA – 00031413-002 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent advised that there had been ongoing problems with securing sufficient funding to run the organisation and that, as a consequence, there were problems with meeting the payroll obligations on a regular basis. The Respondent submitted that they were very concerned about this situation and had done everything in their power to address the matter with their funding provider. Notwithstanding those efforts the Respondent submitted that the continued functioning of the organisation became untenable and they were left with no option but to go into liquidation. The Respondent confirmed that due to their financial circumstances they had not made payment for the final month’s salary at the time of the termination of employment.

CA – 00031413-003 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent advised of the financial challenges faced in the period 2018/19 which ultimately led to the Respondent going into liquidation. The Respondent confirmed that in these challenging financial circumstances the Complainant had not received pay in lieu of notice upon termination of his employment.

CA – 00031413-004 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that while the Complainant was rostered for a 24-hour shift, he nonetheless, had a rest period between 10 pm until 6 am when clients were in bed. This period was classed as a sleepover period.

CA – 00031413-005 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent acknowledged that breaks were not built into the roster, but he submitted were expected to be taken in consultation with colleagues. He submitted that there was no reason not to take breaks and that, at times there were only a small number of clients on the premises so there would be ample opportunity for breaks.

The Respondent submitted that he was unclear about this complaint.

CA – 00031413-007 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that there had been staff shortages and that existing staff had worked additional shifts as a consequence. In these circumstances the Respondent accepted that there may have been occasions when the weekly rest period had not been observed.

CA – 00031413-008 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that there had been staff shortages and that existing staff had worked additional shifts as a consequence. In these circumstances the Respondent accepted that there had been occasions when the Complainant had worked in excess of 48 hours in a given week.

CA – 00031413-009 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent confirmed that due to their financial circumstances they had not made payment for annual leave outstanding at the time of the termination of employment.

CA – 00031413-0010 CA – 00031413-0010 [European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations, S.I. No. 5007 of 2006

The Respondent submitted that he was unclear about this complaint.

CA – 00031413-0011 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent confirmed that due to their financial circumstances they had not made payment for public holiday entitlement lost at the time of the termination of employment.

CA – 00031413-0012 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-009

CA – 00031413-0013 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-011

CA – 00031413-0014 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submitted that he was unclear about this complaint.

CA – 00031413-0018 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had received a written contract of employment upon commencement of employment.

The Respondent submitted that he was unclear about this complaint.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA – 00031413-001 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

From the evidence adduced at the hearing it is clear that this matter is not disputed by the parties. It is evident that no additional provision was made for payment for Sunday working nor was additional time off granted in respect of time worked. In considering how to now address this matter I note that Section 14(a) of the Act states that an employee who is required to work on a Sunday should be compensated by the employer by the following means “by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances”. The other three options set out Section 14 (b), (c) and (d) cannot be applied to persons no longer in employment and so the above provision is the only relevant provision in these circumstances.

I find that the Complainant should have been paid an additional allowance for Sunday working.

CA – 00031413-002 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

From the evidence adduced at the hearing it is clear that this matter is not disputed by the parties. Section 5(6) (b) states that where “ none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making 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.”

As the matter of the non-payment is not in dispute I find that the Complainant should have been paid his final month’s salary and as such the non-payment of these wages is an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act.

CA – 00031413-003 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

From the evidence adduced at hearing it is clear that the issue of the non-payment of pay in lieu of notice is not in dispute. The Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 sets out the minimum notice to apply, and for employees with between 13 weeks and 2 years’ service, sets this at a minimum of 1 week. In this instance there is no contractual notice period defined and, in these circumstances, I find that the Complainant had an entitlement to 1 week’s pay in lieu of notice.

Section 5(6) (b) of the Payment of Wages Act states that where “ none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making 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.”

I found that the Complainant was entitled to 1 week’s pay in lieu of notice and as the non-payment of this amount is not in dispute I find that the Complainant should have been paid 1 week’s pay in lieu of notice and that the non-payment of same is an unlawful deduction within the meaning of the Act.

CA – 00031413-004 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In this instance the Complainant contended that he worked a 24-hour shift without a break while the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was on sleepover from 10 pm to 6 am, a period of 8 hours. The Complainant submitted that this “sleep” time was often disturbed, particularly when managing certain clients with challenging behaviour. In these instances, the Complainant contended there were times when he got little or no sleep. He Respondent accepted that such occasions did arise.

Section 11 of the Act states that “an employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less that 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.”

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing I find that, notwithstanding the sleepover period, the Complainant was not afforded a rest period of 11 consecutive hours on an ongoing basis when working a 24-hour shift.

CA – 00031413-005 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In this instance the Complainant contended that he did not receive his breaks, while the Respondent submitted that although breaks were not formally rostered there was ample opportunity to take breaks by agreement with colleagues. The Complainant accepted that this was the case but pointed to occasions when there were challenges due to staff shortages. The Respondent accepted that there had been staff shortages which may have impacted the ability of the Complainant to take breaks.

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing I find that the Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to always take his breaks.

At the hearing the Complainant confirmed that he had been unsure which legislation to tick when completing the online complaint form. He accepted that this legislation was not relevant to his employment.

Based on this evidence I find that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation.

CA – 00031413-007 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In this instance the Complainant contended that he regularly worked a 3 consecutive 24-hour shifts in week 1 followed directly by 3 consecutive 24 hour shifts in week 2. He advised that the roster was set up in this way. The Respondent acknowledged that this did occur due to staff shortages. The Complainant submitted that the respondent had not made efforts to recruit staff and the respondent clarified that this was because of already obvious funding difficulties.

Section 13(3) of the Act states that “an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours;”. The section also states that “the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period”.

Based on the above and the evidence adduced at hearing I find that the Complainant did not receive his weekly rest periods in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

CA – 00031413-008 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

In this instance the Complainant submitted that he regularly worked between 45 and 55 hours per week. He submitted that on those occasions when he worked 3 consecutive 24 hour shifts his working week was 72 hours and that he did not always receive compensatory rest at the end of that period. This was acknowledged by the Respondent who clarified that the number of long shifts worked arose due to staff shortages.

Section 15(1) of the Act states that “an employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a “reference period”) that does not exceed – (a) 4 months or (b) 6 months.”

Notwithstanding the long shifts described by the Complainant and the acceptance of the Respondent that the Complainant was rostered as described, the Complainant did not provide evidence of hours worked over either a 4 month or a 6 month reference period. In these circumstances I find that the Complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his complaint.

CA – 00031413-009 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant submitted that he had not been paid for annual leave outstanding at the time of termination of employment and that this amounted to payment for 40 hours of annual leave remaining. This was accepted by the Respondent.

Section 23 (1)(b) of the act states that where an employee ceases to be employed and “ the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the current leave year or, in case the cesser of employment occurs during the first half of that year, in respect of that year, the previous leave year or both those years, remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.”

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing I find that the Complainant should have been paid for 40 hours of annual leave outstanding at the time of termination of his employment.

CA – 00031413-0010 CA – 00031413-0010 [European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations, S.I. No. 5007 of 2006

Based on this evidence I find that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation.

CA – 00031413-0011 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

At the hearing the Complainant submitted that he had not been paid for his public holiday entitlement upon termination of his employment. This matter was accepted by the Respondent.

Section 23 (2)(b) states that where an employee cease to be employed during the week ending on the day before a public holiday and “the employee has worked for his or her employer during the four weeks preceding that week, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of his or her entitlements under section 21 in respect of the said public holiday, be paid by his or her employer, an amount equal to an additional day’s pay calculated at the appropriate daily rate.”

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, the date of termination of employment (i.e. 1st June 2019) and the fact that the final salary was also not paid I find that the Complaint should have been for 2 public holidays (May and June) upon termination of his employment.

CA – 00031413-0012 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-009

CA – 00031413-0013 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-011

CA – 00031413-0014 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

Based on evidence adduced at the hearing it became clear that the Complainant had not availed of carer’s leave and had ticked the box on the complaint form in error.

Based on this evidence I find that the Complainant cannot maintain a complaint in relation to carer’s leave under the Act.

CA – 00031413-0018 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994

In this instance the Complainant submitted that he had not received a written statement of terms and conditions from the Respondent. The Respondent disputed this and was emphatic that a contract had issued containing terms of employment. The Respondent submitted that there was one on file, however, the files were in the possession of the liquidator.

Throughout the hearing I found both parties to be honest and straight forward in their statements and neither party was prone to excuse or exaggeration. I found both parties to be honest and credible. It is, therefore not possible to draw an inference from the credibility of the parties.

I note that section 3(5) of the Act states that “a copy of said statement shall be retained by the employer during the period of the employee’s employment and for a period of 1 year thereafter.” I am satisfied, therefore that it is the responsibility of the Respondent to either have a copy of the statement in his possession or make arrangements to obtain a copy of the statement for the purpose of providing supporting documentation to his evidence. In circumstances where the Respondent was not in a position to furnish this document I find that the Complainant did not receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

Based on this evidence I find that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation.

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.

CA – 00031413-001 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant should have been paid an additional allowance for Sunday working. It is therefore my decision that the complaint is well founded and that the Respondent should apply the payment for Sunday working for Social Care Workers as set out in the HSE Consolidated Salary scales to all Sunday hours worked throughout the employment of the Complainant. These HSE rates were determined by collective agreement and are the norm in the health and social care sectors.

CA – 00031413-002 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

I found that the Complainant should have been paid his final month’s salary and was not and therefore it is my decision that the complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the Respondent should now pay the Complainant for all hours worked in his final month of employment.

CA – 00031413-003 Complaint under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

I found that the Complainant was entitled to 1 week’s pay in lieu of notice, that he should have been paid this amount at the time of the termination of his employment and he was not. It is therefore my decision that this complaint is well founded and that the Respondent should now pay the complainant one week’s pay in settlement of this matter.

CA – 00031413-004 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant was not afforded a rest period of 11 consecutive hours on an ongoing basis when working a 24-hour shift and therefore it is my decision that the complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the Respondent should pay the Complainant €500 as compensation.

CA – 00031413-005 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant was not afforded the opportunity to always take his breaks and therefore it is my decision that this complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the Respondent should pay the Complainant €1500 as compensation.

I found that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031413-007 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant did not receive his weekly rest periods in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is my decisions that this compliant is well founded and that the Respondent should pay the Complainant €1500 as compensation.

CA – 00031413-008 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his complaint. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031413-009 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant should have been paid for 40 hours of annual leave outstanding at the time of termination of his employment and was not. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the Respondent should now pay the complainant for 40 hours annual leave.

CA – 00031413-0010 CA – 00031413-0010 [European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations, S.I. No. 5007 of 2006

I found that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031413-0011 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complaint should have been paid for 2 public holidays (May and June) upon the termination of his employment. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the Respondent should now pay the Complainant two days pay for the loss of his public holiday entitlement.

CA – 00031413-0012 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-009

CA – 00031413-0013 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

This complaint is a duplicate of CA-00031413-011

CA – 00031413-0014 Complaint under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I found that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint associated with carer’s leave under the Act. Therefore, it is my decision that the complaint is not well founded.

CA – 00031413-0018 Complaint under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act,1994

I found that the Complainant did not receive a written statement of terms and conditions of employment. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is well founded. It is also my decision that the respondent should pay the Complainant one week’s pay as compensation.

I found that the Complainant does not have standing to maintain a complaint under this legislation. Therefore, it is my decision that this complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 08/06/2020

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patricia Owens

Key Words:

Working time, terms of employment, payment of wages