Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Deli Manager

A Delicatessen

Representatives

  Complainant

Not represented at the hearing

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-00034748-001

19/02/2020

The respondent ceased operations on the 19th January 2020. On the night before closure the owner called a meeting to tell staff of the closures and assured staff that all money owed would be paid. The complainant alleges that she was not paid for holidays accrued.

On December 18th 2019, the respondent held a managers meeting to discuss the everyday operations of both cafés.

At this meeting staff raised concerns about holidays as the Christmas period was drawing in and some staff still had holiday days to take before the end of the year. The Owner told staff at this meeting that, as they were short on staff, the company could not offer the time off to staff who were due holidays, and that the hours would carry over to January. At this meeting the complainant enquired about holiday hours owed, She was informed that she had 25hrs accumulated for hours worked up to the 13th December. None of these were used over the following weeks prior to the company’s closure.

Hours worked from that meeting on 18th of December until the closure of the business in January resulted in a further 13.7 hours holiday being owed, giving a total of 38.7 hours at the rate of 12€ per hour totalling €464.40.

Staff were informed that the company was closing due to lack of funds on the 19th of January 2020.  No notice was given to any staff that this was going to take place. On the night before closure the owner called a meeting to tell staff of the closures and assured staff that all money owed would be paid.  When the complainant contacted the owner about owed holiday pay she was informed that there was no money and there was nothing she could do and that is what happens when Revenue close a business.

The business reopened three weeks later.

The Respondent was not represented at the hearing.  A written submission was submitted in advance of the hearing stating;

 The managers were all made aware of the closure when I received the warrant from the Sheriff's Office on January 17th. The rest of the staff were then told together along with the managers on January 19th.

Whatever was said to staff about holiday pay was due to the fact that I was unaware how close the business was to being forced to close. We had been in the process of applying for a phased payment plan but it was too late. For the last 3 months of the company functioning, all wages were paid from a personal loan.

The respondent was not in attendance at the hearing.  I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing, and the non-attendance has not been explained to my satisfaction. In reaching my conclusion I considered the written submission received from the respondent.

 Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 states

.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule  (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to—

(a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment),

(b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or

(c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks):

The evidence given by the complainant at the hearing was that the respondent did not fulfil this obligation and, as this evidence was uncontested, I find that the complaint is well founded.

The complaint is well-founded, and I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €464.40.

Business closure.  Holidays owed