Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Darragh  Kelly

Retink Graphics Limited Retink Graphics Limited

Representatives

Ken Stafford Management Consultancy Services

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00040703-001

30/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00040703-002

30/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00040703-003

30/10/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00040703-004

30/10/2020

The complainant's last two payslips received for the weeks ending 25/04/20 and 02/05/20) show that he was only  paid for 37.5 hours each (leaving a 2.5 hours shortfall on both, a total of 5 hours short of his established weekly entitlement.

He was given no notification or explanation for the  deduction and to date, this sum has not been paid. The amount owed is for five hours (gross) x €13.50 = €67.50

On May 1st (the day the employment ended) he worked 1.5 hours of overtime after the end of the shift. To date, this sum has not been paid.

On May 5th he spent one hour collecting files and folders in order to return them to the respondent (as requested them) after some weeks working from home. The files were returned in good faith despite still not having received final payments from the company. To date, it has still not been paid and amounts to €33.75

The complainant seeks pay in lieu of any statutory minimum period of notice prior to the termination of his employment on the evening of May 1st, 2020 as per the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. This amounts to one week’s pay (gross) in lieu of statutory minimum period of notice;  €540.00

On the evening of May 1st 2020,  the complainant received a phone call from his former employer - telling him that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect. This happened without providing the statutory minimum period of notice or payment in lieu.

Total payments owed to me by the respondent: €641.25

The complainant believes from subsequent communications with the respondent that he has no intention of honouring these claims.

The respondent made an ex gratia payment of €67.50 on August 14th before declaring that he considered “the matter closed”. This payment was neither sought nor requested and is clearly insufficient.

Complaints CA-00040703-001 and 002

The total of these two claims is €101.25.

The respondent is willing to make a settlement with the complainant but in any event if this is not acceptable to the complainant they are conceded as being well-founded.

Complaints CA-00040703-003 and 004

These are duplicate claims, although the complainant makes it clear that he is seeking just one week’s notice payment.

The response is straightforward; the complainant did not attend for work on Monday 4th May 2020.

On Tuesday, 5th May 2020, the complainant informed the respondent MD that he had left his   employment, and that he had already started a new job.

The text exchange that confirms this is submitted as evidence.

In response to a query from the complainant, the respondent MD sent the following to the him:

I want to clear up what appears to be confusion over your employment situation with us. On 5th May 2020 you sent me a text message, which included the following: “Started a new job today … I told them I’d have my P45 from you tomorrow ..”.

The last date on which you could have been employed in Retink was therefore 4th May 2020, and that is the date I have used for the end date of your employment with us.

You should be aware that there is now no P45 when an employment ends, and the information is simply entered online with Revenue. This information is available to you if you register with Revenue. I do not believe that any further monies are due to you, but if you think otherwise I would ask that you set out full details to me, at your earliest convenience.

The claim seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the notice entitlement.

It is only a financial entitlement if the employee is willing and able to work the notice period. This claimant was neither, so no payment applies.

As will be clear from the submissions of the parties this is a simple matter; made simpler in respect of complaints CA-00040703-001 and 002 by the respondent’s acknowledgement that the complaints are well-founded.

However, in respect of the complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973 this is clearly misconceived, and it fails, for reasons set out in the respondent’s submission which I accept.

Accordingly this complaint is not well-founded.  

For the reasons set out above complaints CA-00040703-001 and 002 are well-founded and I award the complainant €102.25 in wages due subject to the statutory deductions.

Complaints CA-00040703-003 and 004 are not well-founded.

Wages, Notice payment