ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025528
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cleaner | Contract Cleaning Company |
Representatives | Olga Shevchenko Immigrant Advice Bureau | Brian Solan, Lar Whelan, Gillian O’Regan |
Complaints:
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-00032382-001 | 21/11/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00032382-002 | 21/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 was employed as a Temporary Cleaner from 5th March 2019. He was paid €10.80 per hour. He has claimed that he is owed for unpaid wages, holiday pay and compensation for not receiving his minimum hours of work. |
1) Payment of Wages - CA 32382-001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
1) Wages owed His representative stated that he is owed 19.5 hours which were unpaid. This amounts to 19.5 X €10.80 = €210.60 for the period 6th June to 20th June 2019. He doesn’t have a record of these actual hours. He stated that he supplied them to his Supervisor. They requested the sign in books, but they did not supply them. |
2) Contractual entitlement
His representative stated that his contract provided for 15 hours minimum per week. He was not given any hours of work for the period 1/8/2019 to 2/10/2019 = 9 weeks X €10.80 per hour X 15 hours = €1,458.00.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
1) Wages owed He was paid in full for all hours worked. They have no record of outstanding pay. The sign in books that he requested are held by the Client Company, they do not do business with them now and so are unable to provide these books. This claim is rejected on the basis of their records supplied show that he was paid for all hours worked. This part of the claim is rejected. 2) Contractual entitlement The Respondent stated that he was employed on a temporary contact of employment. This contract was to cover holidays and sickness absence. His short-term assignments always had a start and finish date. His last cover period ended on 31st July 2019. He never showed up for work after that, which shows that he did not have any minimum hours of work entitlement. They accept that an employee of the company emailed him in error and referred to 15 hours per week. This was never discussed or agreed with him. It was never operated by the Respondent company. He never worked with the company after 31st July 2019 and he was formally removed from their books on 20th April 2020. He never worked these 15 hours per week for the 9 weeks claimed. So, no entitlement to pay. |
Findings and Conclusions:
1) Wages Owed I note that the Complainant is unable to particularise this claim. He does not know the exact dates or hours that were allegedly worked. I note that the Respondent supplied records of hours worked and hours paid. On the basis of the records shown I find that the Complainant is not owed wages. I find that this part of the claim is not well founded.
2) Contractual entitlement I find that the Complainant was employed on a fixed purpose temporary contract to supply holiday and sickness cover. I find no evidence that he worked a 15-hour minimum roster. I find that he worked specific projects covering short-term absence, which had a start and end date. I note the Respondent’s comment that the email referring to 15 hours per week was issued by a “Junior” person in error. I note that such a minimum contract was never discussed or agreed with the Complainant. I note that after his last assignment which ended on 31st July he went on holidays and never returned. I find that if he had a clear cut 15-hour minimum contractual entitlement he would be expected to return to work but he didn’t. On the balance of probability, I find that the email offering 15 hours per week was in fact a clerical error and the realities of this employment confirm this. I find that he does not have a contractual entitlement to the monies claimed. I find that these monies are not properly payable. I find that this part of the claim fails. |
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.
I have decided that both claims 1) and 2) above are not well founded and so they fail.
2) Organisation of Working Time Act CA 32382-002Findings and Conclusions:
This claim has been settled and withdrawn. |
Dated: 9th September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Wages owed, contractual entitlement |