ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030211
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Chef | Bar / Restaurant |
Representatives | Self represented | Niall Lucey Solicitor |
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-00038723-001 | 07/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00038723-002 | 07/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00038723-003 | 07/06/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00039434-001 | 30/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/02/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973,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 Head Chef in the Respondent’s employment from July 2017 to 2nd February 2020. His earnings were €855.33 gross and €652.76 net per week. The business closed without notice on 2nd February 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00038723-001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant seeks payment of one week and two days pay which he calculates as €1,197.46. The Complainant seeks payment of 2 weeks pay in lieu of annual leave accrued and not taken at the cessation of his employment, which he calculates as €1,710.66. CA-00038723-002 – Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant seeks payment of appropriate pay in lieu of minimum notice which he contends is four weeks pay as contained in his contract of employment. He calculates this as €3,421.32. |
CA-00038723-003 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 The Complainant states that he did not receive statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu of the termination of his employment. CA-00039434-001 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 The Complainant states that he did not receive statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu of the termination of his employment. (Duplicate claim).
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
At the beginning of the hearing, the Respondent agreed that the name on the complaint be corrected to the correct name of the company instead of the individual owners. It was submitted that through no fault of theirs, the owners of the business did have to close suddenly and it was with regret that the business which had been in the family for years had to do so. In relation to the various claims submitted by the Complainant, it was agreed that the wages of the final week remained unpaid, the annual leave claim is disputed as the Complainant did take holidays in the previous year and some 6 days in the current year. The Respondent stated that the Complainant did receive his statutory redundancy and there were no funds to pay the other claims. |
Decision:
CA-00038723-001 – Payment of Wages Act 1991 I find that the Complainant did not receive his final week’s pay and have decided that his complaint is in part well founded. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the net sum of €652.76. I find that the Complainant is entitled to payment in lieu of annual leave accrued and not taken at the cessation of his employment. Neither party was able to provide me with certain records of outstanding leave. I find that payment for outstanding annual leave was not made to the Complainant in his final week’s pay. I have decided that his complaint is in part well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the net sum of €1,305.52 which represents the monetary net value of two week’s pay. CA-00038723-002 – Payment of Wages Act 1991 I find that the appropriate pay in lieu of minimum notice which the Complainant is entitled to is four week’s pay as his employment contract provides for same. I have decided that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the net sum of €2,611.04, which represents the monetary net value of four week’s pay. |
CA-00038723-003 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 The Complainant states that he did not receive statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu of the termination of his employment. This matter has been decided in CA-00038723-002 above. CA-00039434-001 – Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973 The Complainant states that he did not receive statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu of the termination of his employment. (Duplicate claim). This matter has been decided in CA-00038723-002 above.
|
Dated: 26th February 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, minimum notice |