ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029051
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Vladlena Soltan | Shannons Solicitors |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | Self-Represented | P. Barriscale BL |
Complaint(s):
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-00038770-001 | 16/07/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00038770-003 | 16/07/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00038770-004 | 16/07/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015; Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
The required Affirmation was administered to all witnesses.
Full Cross Examination took place.
Linked files – Adj-00030508
Note: These Complaints & Dispute – ADJ -00029051 are very closely linked to ADJ–00030508. Both ADJs were heard in sequence as both shared the same facts and evidence.
Background:
The issues in contention concern the alleged non-payment of wages and holiday pay (Standard and Public) following an alleged unfair ending of an alleged employment of the Complainant by the Respondent firm of Solicitors. While disputed by the Parties the alleged employment was stated to have commenced on the 10th February 2020 and formally ended on the 22nd June 2020. While also contested, the rate of pay was stated to be €1,666.67 per month for 37.50-hour week. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
1:1 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00038770-001 The Complainant alleged that she was entitled to an outstanding payment of € 451.19 on the ending of her employment. She was paid € 794.82 instead of the expected €1,250 1:2 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00038770-003 The Complainant alleged that she was due standard annual leave payment for her work period with the Respondent 1:3 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The Complainant alleged that she was due Public Holiday payment for her work period with the Respondent |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
2:1 Opening Legal Position The Respondent argued that the Complainant was not an employee of the Firm. She was a Legal Intern and a Work Experience person. There was no Contract of Employment. Accordingly, no liability applies to the Respondent on any of the complaints listed. Regarding the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00038770-001 complaint and notwithstanding the legal points above it was accepted that a small monthly payment, a “Stipend”, was made to the Complainant of € 1,666.67 per month. This payment was properly adjusted for the days worked in March (pay slips provided in evidence) and was paid. No liability for non-payment arises. Regarding the Holiday Pay complaints CA-00038770-003 and CA-00038770-004 no liability arises as there was no employment relationship.
|
3: Findings and Conclusions:
3:1 Legal Position. – Status of Employment – Adj 30508 decision. In Adj-00030508, a closely linked case which was heard in parallel to this case, it was the Adjudication decision that the Complainant did not have a Contract of Employment. She had instead a very imprecise Work Experience arrangement which was clearly, following any usual tests, not a Contract of Employment. Accordingly, as there was no Contract of Employment I have to find that the complaints in this case are without proper foundation and must be deemed Not Well Founded. |
4: Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015; Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 require that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Adjudication decision |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00038770-001 | Complaint Not Well Founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00038770-003 | Complaint Not Well Founded |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00038770-004 | Complaint Not Well Founded |
|
Dated: 9th November 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
Work Experience / Contract of Employment / Annual Leave. |