Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A chef

An hotel

Representatives

  Complainant

Manager of the Hotel

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-00040370-001

12/10/2020

The complainant worked as a chef in the respondent hotel.  He alleges that he was not paid in respect of TOIL days and holidays when he left.

The Complainant worked as a Chef De Partie with the respondent and resigned from his position on 26th August 2020. He believes he is due 154 hours overtime and three days annual leave. Throughout his employment he received additional annual leave in lieu of any overtime hours worked. When he queried this on 25th September 2020 he was informed that his Contract of Employment specifically stated that no additional remuneration was payable for overtime hours. It is the complainant’s position that as he received additional annual leave in lieu of overtime hours during the entire period of his employment he should have been paid for overtime hours worked when he ceased employment. He is also due 3 days accrued annual leave and €50 for return of his work uniform.

A full and exhaustive review of all wages and entitlements was undertaken into the complaint made.

The review extended back to the start of 2019 and included analysis of records for worked days on the time management system, wage slips for all time periods and holiday entitlements owed under the complainant’s contract of employment.

The Contract of employment clearly points out that the contract is based on 5 days a week at a set salary and there is no additional payment for hours worked over 39hrs per week.

In 2019 the complainant worked 6 days above the contracted 5 days a week thus generating 6 Toil days in the year. He was paid 7 days thus receiving 1 more day that was due.

In 2020 the complainant did not work in excess of 5 days in any week and thus did not generate any Toil days. However, in that period he was paid for 1 Toil day time that he was not entitled to. 

In 2019 the complainant was paid 23 days holidays in the year against an entitlement of 20 days thus he was overpaid by 3 days in the year.

In 2020 the property closed on 18 March and reopened on 29th June. However, the complainant did not return to work until the 18th August and finished his employment on the 9th September. Calculations show that total holiday due to the complainant was 5.48 (rounded to 5.5) for time worked in the year. Pay was made to the complainant for 10 days holidays early in the year and a deduction of 3 days was made on his final payment on departure. Therefore the complainant was paid a total of 7 days holidays in 2020, 1.5 days above his entitlement. The complaint was paid 4.5 holidays above his entitlement.

The respondent provided comprehensive records at the hearing which demonstrated that the complainant had received his full entitlement in relation to both TOIL and holiday pay. I am satisfied that the complaint was based on a misunderstanding on the part of the complainant. The complaint is therefore not well founded.

The complaint is not well founded

Payment of Wages. Records of payments made