ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021494
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Head of Employee Relations | A HR firm in liquidation |
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-00028146-001 | 02/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00028146-003 | 02/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00028146-004 | 02/05/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00028146-009 | 02/05/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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 commenced working for the Respondent on the 7th of January 2019. The employment ended on the 1st of April 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence as to the treatment she endured in the Respondents employment. CA/00028146/004. This is a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act.
This complaint was a complaint for notice/holidays/payment for expenses and pension as per her contract. The Complainant sought a maximum double of the amount of the claim owed as compensation. The Respondent failed to pay the monies, repeatedly lied in relation to the payments, failed to mark the Complainant as a leaver on the Revenue system, failed to pay her tax, PRSI and USC. He also failed to provide payslips. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by the Respondent or Liquidator. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Complaint CA/00028146/001. This is a claim under the Payment of Wages Act. This was in relation to payment in lieu of notice.
The Complainant resigned on the 1st of April 2019. Her claim was that she was due one week’s notice.
The Complainant explained that the Respondent had agreed to allow her a week’s wages in lieu of notice as furnished in an email dated the 1st of April 2019 at 6.25pm. It stated “your notice period will be paid out in lieu therefore you do not have to attend the office this week however I would ask you to do a handover email to me only in the coming days of all the client and business activity you are working on at present”
The Complainant calculated this amount due as €1,153.85
Murphy J. in the High Court has confirmed that an employee who has been “constructively dismissed” cannot claim under this Act: Halal Meat Packers (Ballyhaunis) Ltd v. Employment Appeals Tribunal [1990] E.L.R. 49.
Complaint CA/00028146/003. This is a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act. This complaint is relation to holiday pay/annual leave entitlement. The Complainant calculated this as amounting to 6.25 days
CA/00028146/004 and CA/00028146/009. These are complaints under the Payment of Wages Act and duplication of the earlier complaints CA/00028146/001 and CA/00028146/003 above. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I make the following decisions:
CA-00028146-001: This complaint is not well founded.
CA-00028146-003 The Complainant calculated this amount as €1,442.31 and I award her that sum being her financial loss. I award the Complainant a further €2,500 being compensation in respect of the contravention of the Act as I consider that the Complainant was very badly treated by the Respondent.
CA-00028146-004 and CA-00028146-004. These are duplications of the above cases and are not well founded.
|
Dated: 18-03-2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
|