Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amy  Coe

Andras Kelemen , Weescape

Representatives

  Self-Represented

No Appearance

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-00038669-001

11/07/2020

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

CA-00038669-004

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00038669-005

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00038669-006

11/07/2020

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

CA-00038669-007

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00038669-008

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00038669-009

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00038669-010

11/07/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00038669-011

11/07/2020

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.

An affirmation was administrated to the parties who gave evidence at the hearing in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021.

The Complainant was employed as the General Manager with the Respondent from 28 August 2018 to 12 April 2020. She earned €392.40 gross for a 36-hour week.

CA-00038669-001- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant gave evidence that she usual worked on Friday – Sunday but did not receive additional monies for Sunday work. She was paid a set sum of €392.40 per week.

CA-00038669-004 - Payment of Wages Act 1991

The Complainant complains that she was not paid monies which were due to her on 12 April 2020. She listed the following payments due to her by the Respondent:-

Wages: €392.40 : she gave evidence that her last day she was paid was 10 March 2020 but the last day she worked was 16 March 2020. 

Holiday Pay: €1,962.00 – the Complainant gave evidence that was due five weeks annual leave which were not taken.

Notice: €1,569.60 – she referred to her contract of employment which provides for four weeks’ notice upon termination which was 12 April 2020.

CA-00038669-005- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant stated she took two holidays during her employment; the first in May 2019 on the days she was not due to work and two weeks in January 2020. She described the work she continued to undertake during her holiday in January 2020 as emails, customer queries and bookings.

She gave evidence that there was never any discussion with the Respondent around annual leave or requirement to take it before a certain date.

 She did state that she had worked additional hours which she understood would be converted into time in lieu days , adding to her over all annual leave balance. Her evidence was that during meetings with the Respondent she regularly brought it up  as there was no overtime provided for in the contract. She was told by the Respondent “take an extra holiday, I trust you.” However, a part time employee left the business and therefore there was no time to take the annual leave.

It was her evidence that she was owed 5 weeks annual leave and time in lieu in total.

On 28 April 2020 the Respondent’s previous solicitor wrote to the Complainant where she referred to clause 9 of the contract of employment:-

“2019

Neither of you took the full 21 days in 2019 and therefore you have forfeited your right to those holidays. By law you would not be entitled to compensation for these dates as the contract does not allow you to carry unused holidays over to the next year.

Unless there was a specific agreement between you and our client that you should be compensated for these missed holidays or you were encouraged not to take these holidays then you are not entitled to compensation. I understand that our client actively encouraged you to take holidays and you chose not to.”

“2020

I understand that you each took holidays from the 2nd of January until the 9th of January 2020 and therefore, you are not owed holiday pay for this year”

CA-00038669-006- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant states she was informed of her entitlement for public holidays nor did she receive anything for working public holidays. She gave evidence that the business was closed on 17 March 2019 and Christmas and St Stephen’s Day. 

CA-00038669-007 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

The Complainant gave evidence that her contract of employment provided for four weeks’ notice.In an email of 16 March 2020 from the Respondent,  he stated:

“It’s so hard to write this letter, but i have to officially confirm that your contract with Weescape will end on the 12th of April (in four weeks).”

The Complainant continued to seek a response from the Respondent when the monies were not paid on 12 April 2020.

By letter dated 28 April 2020, the Respondent’s solicitor wrote to the Complainant and stated in response to her claim for notice pay:-

“You were advised that your employment was to be terminated in March of this year and due to the Covid 19 crisis, our client was forced to close the business on the 15th of March last. You are aware that in the weeks prior to the closure, the amount of booking was significantly reduced and therefore, there were no funds to pay you.

The State payment of €350.00 is available to those who have lost their jobs as a result of Covid 19 and you were eligible to claim this payment from the date that our client stopped paying you. I understand that you have claimed this payment and you cannot claim both your wages and the state payment. “

The Complainant sent numerous other emails seeking payment of the contracted four weeks’ notice but was unsuccessful in seeking payment from the Respondent. Her total claim for four weeks unpaid notice €1,569.60.

CA-00038669-008 - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant gave evidence that she did not receive any or any adequate breaks during her time working with the Respondent. She explained that her shift hours allowed for a 15-minute instructional talk to customers , assistance while customers were playing the game and another 15 minutes to tidy up / rearrange the game after they were finished. There was time scheduled between each game, but her evidence was that this was taken up with the time required before and after each game to attend to the customers and clean up. This was particularly the case on weekends when there would have been back to back games and it was too busy to leave the premises. The Complainant stated that she would , at times, have to ask a colleague to go to the shop and get her a sandwich and eat it at the desk between games.

The Complainant stated that she regularly brought this issue up at meetings with the Respondent.

CA-00038669-009 - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

 The Complainant gave evidence that she did not receive weekly rest periods. She stated she worked on site from Friday – Sunday but was in charge of emails, phone calls, social media from Monday – Thursday which meant she never had a day off.

From February – April 2019 and again in June and September 2019 the business was without a part time employee and it is the Complainant’s case that she was a full-time employee as she was expected to be on site 7 days a week.

From July – August 2019 she gave evidence that the Respondent was away on five weeks holiday and left the Complainant solely in charge of running operations on site , managing staff and emails.

She stated this issue was raised to the Respondent without resolution.

CA-00038669-010 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The Complainant gave evidence that received a contract of employment until November 2018 and a second contract in October 2019. She took issue with a number of the clauses of the October 2019 contract. Further evidence was given the period of negotiation she entered into on the period in August 2019 to October 2019 with the Respondent via his solicitor on the terms of the contract. The Complainant states that even in October 2019 the contract did not fully reflect her role with the Respondent, but she felt having any contract was better than none.

CA-00038669-011 – Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

On 16 March 2020,  the Respondent emailed the Complainant confirming that her contract would end of 12 April 2020 “(in four weeks)”. He continued to, “ It is a sad moment but due to the deep impact caused by the Coronavirus to our business, I have no other choice. I prefer to make this decision before it was too late.” He ended that emailed by thanking her for her great work with the business.

On 28 April 2020 the Respondent’s previous solicitor wrote to the Complainant referring to the contract of employment. She stated in relation to the termination:-

“You were advised that your employment was to be terminated in March of this year and due to the Covid 19 crisis, our client was forced to close the business on the 15th of March last. You are aware that in the weeks prior to the closure, the amount of booking was significantly reduced and therefore, there were no funds to pay you.

The State payment of €350.00 is available to those who have lost their jobs as a result of Covid 19 and you were eligible to claim this payment from the date that our client stopped paying you. I understand that you have claimed this payment and you cannot claim both your wages and the state payment.”

The Complainant sent numerous emails and messages to the Respondent in the hope of resolving matters before submitting her complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant gave evidence that she finished her college course in May or June 2020 and then started looking for alternative employment. She gave evidence that she applied for administration and retail jobs on Indeed, Jobsie and Monster as well as applying directly. In April 2021 she obtained employment with a salary of €24,000 per year.

There was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Having reviewed the file I am satisfied that he did receive the notification of the hearing as he engaged with the WRC via email and telephone.

On the day of the hearing, the Respondent was again contacted by phone and advised of the hearing.

I waited a reasonable amount of time for the Respondent to attend the hearing, but he failed to attend.

It is important to note that for all the legislation which the Complainant seeks to rely on there is a statutory limitation in terms of time. In general, the legislation provides for a time limit of 6 month to initiate a claim. In relation to the Payment of Wages Act 1991, Section 6 (4) provides:-

“(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in a case where the rights commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable”

Similarly, Section 27 (4) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1994 provides:-

“(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section if it is presented to the commissioner after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

Consequently, I am limited as to how far I can look back at the claims where,  aside from the Unfair Dismissal claim, the remaining claims relate to events in 2019 up to the date of Complaint Form was submitted to the WRC on 11 July 2020 with her date of termination of employment being 12 April 2020.

CA-00038669-001 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

“14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely—

(a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(b) by otherwise increasing the employee's rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

(2) Subsection (3) applies to an employee where the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to him or her in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday is not specified by a collective agreement.”

The contract of employment dated October 2019 furnished to the Complainant does not address Sunday pay. In the absence of a specific clause address Sunday compensation in addition to the nonappearance of the Respondent to give contradictory evidence , I find the complaint is well founded.

However, I must also have consideration for the time limit imposed by Section 27 (4) of the Act where the Complaint Form was submitted to the WRC on 11 July 2020 with her date of termination of employment being 12 April 2020.  

CA-00038669-004 -Payment of Wages Act 1991

There are three separate claims for non-payment of wages under this complaint number. I propose to address the claim for annual leave and notice under the headings below and therefore, do not form part of this complaint. Consequently, I will only consider the complaint of non-payment of wages for the period of 9 – 16 March 2020 in the gross amount of €392.40.

The Complainant presented evidence of numerous requests for payment of her wage to the  Respondent which were undisputed. Upon inquiry, the Complainant advised that she did not receive payslips from the Respondent.

I accept the Complainant’s evidence.

Consequently, I find this complaint is well founded.

CA-00038669-005- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Section 19 of the Act sets out an employee’s annual leave entitlement:-

19.—(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 contract of employment at Clause 23 states:-

“Upon termination of employment, the Employer will compensate the Employee for any accrued but unused annual leave.”

The letter of 28 April 2020 to the Complainant is simply incorrect in its interpretation of the law. The 1994 Act is clear that there is an onus on the employer to ensure an employee is facilitated with their full annual leave entitlement. The evidence in this case is the Respondent did not fulfil his duty in this regard. It is accepted that the Complainant took annual leave in January 2020. What the letter does confirm is the Complainant has annual leave which was not taken. Referring to Clause 23 of the contract which is in line with Section 23 of the Act in that upon termination  of employment:-

“23.—(1) Where—

(a) an employee ceases to be employed, and

(b) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the current leave year or, in case the cesser of employment occurs during the first half of that year, in respect of that year, the previous leave year or both those years, remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.”

There is no provision for time in lieu in the contract nor was any record presented. However, I do find the annual leave complaint well founded.

CA-00038669-006- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant was given an opportunity to identify the public holiday she claims she was entitled to and she advised that she worked the day before St Patrick’s Day 2019. From her evidence it is understood her usual days of work were Friday – Sunday.

Consequently, I do not find this claim well founded.

CA-00038669-007 – Payment of Wages 1991

Upon review of the contract of employment signed by the parties on 28 October 2019 at Clause 12 it is noted that there is a clear notice period of 2 weeks. Therefore, the Complainant’s claim that she is entitled to 4 weeks’ notice is not accepted. It appears she was referring to previous contracts of employment.

Again, upon inquiry the Complainant gave evidence that there was no payslips available from the Respondent.

Numerous emails were presented by the Complainant as evidence of her requests to the Respondent for the payment of her notice period. This was undisputed by the Respondent who did to appear.

Consequently, I find the claim is well founded.

CA-00038669-008 - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Section 12 of the Act sets out the requirements for daily rest periods:-

“12.—(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

(2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister may by regulations provide, as respects a specified class or classes of employee, that the minimum duration of the break to be allowed to such an employee under subsection (2) shall be more than 30 minutes (but not more than 1 hour).

(4) A break allowed to an employee at the end of the working day shall not be regarded as satisfying the requirement contained in subsection (1) or (2).”

The Complainant supplied time sheets for hours worked in 2019. However, due to the time limit imposed by the legislation I am limited to the period of 6 months prior to the date of submission of the Complaint Form on 11 July 2020. I am also conscious that the last date the Complainant states she worked with the Respondent was 16 March 2020. The relevant period of contravention is from 11 January 2020 – 16 March 2020. 

It is accepted that the Complainant worked on weekends and this was a particularly busy time. The Complainant’s evidence is further accepted when she stated she did receive breaks with some after 4.5 hours. Therefore, no issue applies in relation to these dates. However, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it is also accepted that on occasions she did not receive the appropriate breaks. Consequently, I find the complaint well founded.

CA-00038669-009 - Organisation of Working Time Act

“13.—(1) In this section “daily rest period” means a rest period referred to in section 11 .

(2) Subject to subsection (3), an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours; subject to subsections (4) and (6), the time at which that rest period commences shall be such that that period is immediately preceded by a daily rest period.”

Section 11 defines a rest period as :-

“11.—An employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours during which he or she works for his or her employer.”

Timesheets have been submitted by Complainant however, as per her own evidence they do not account for work undertaken at home on the phone, email and social media on Monday to Thursdays. She gave evidence that her usual days of work onsite were Thursday to Sunday.  She gave evidence that while there was no part time employed she had to cover hours during the week as well as the weekend from February to April 2019 and again in June and September 2019.

It must be noted that I am limited to the period of 6 months prior to the date of submission of the Complaint Form on 11 July 2020 with the last date the Complainant states she worked was 16 March 2020. Therefore, relevant period of contravention is from 11 January 2020 – 16 March 2020. 

Based on the time period set out in the Complainant’s evidence, it is outside the period of contravention allowed for in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Therefore, I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00038669-010 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Having heard the evidence of the Complainant and reviewed the contract of employment, it is clear there are many clauses within the contract that are misleading and legally incorrect which lead to difficulties in the employment relationship. This was to the detriment of the Complainant and on that basis,  I find the complaint well founded.   

CA-00038669-011 – Unfair Dismissals Act

It is accepted that the Complainant received an email from the Respondent on 16 March 2020 terminating her employment which was followed by a letter from his solicitor, dated 28 April 2020.

Where an employee is found to have been dismissed from her employment there is an obligation on the employer to comply with the principles of natural justice to ensure that dismissal is procedurally fair and secondly that the reason for dismissal is fair as prescribed by Section 6 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977- 2015: -

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal.”

Noonan J. in Bank of Ireland –v- O’Reilly [2015] 26 E.L.R. 229 held: “…the onus is on the employer to establish that there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal and that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the matters specified in s.6(4), which includes the conduct of the employee or that there were other substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(7) makes clear that the court may have regard to the reasonableness of the employer’s conduct in relation to the dismissal. That is however not to say that the court or other relevant body may substitute its own judgment as to whether the dismissal was reasonable for that of the employer. The question rather is whether the decision to dismiss is within the range of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer to the conduct concerned …. “.

In the circumstances, where the Respondent terminated the Complainant’s employment by email dated 16 March 2020, I find that the Complainant was dismissed from her employment by the Respondent. The Respondent’s actions are entirely void of fair procedures and would go as far as to say he took advantage of the Covid19 pandemic to terminate her employment. It is accepted that it was a time of great uncertainty but on the 16 March 2020 however, emergency legislation and social welfare payments were put in place to assist employers in retaining employees in their jobs during the pandemic.

Section 29 of Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 was temporarily reduced the scope of the operation of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 by the addition of Section 12A to the Redundancy Payments Act as follows:-

‘Section 12A. (1) Section 12 shall not have effect during the emergency period in respect of an employee who has been laid off or kept on short-time due to the effects of measures required to be taken by his or her employer in order to comply with, or as a consequence of, Government policy to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of infection of Covid-19.’

This legislation came into effect on 13 March 2020 , 3 days prior to the Respondent’s email wherein he decided to terminate the Complainant’s employment. It is also noted that the Complainant gave evidence to the effect the Respondent himself sought to assist her in claiming the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) which demonstrates his awareness of the state financial supports that were in place. Furthermore, the Respondent was in receipt of some sort of advice re the payment  the letter from his solicitor to the Complainant on 28 April 2020 advises the Complainant the PUP is “available to those who have lost their jobs as a result of Covid 19 and you were eligible to claim this payment from the date that our client stopped paying you.”

Regardless of the advice provided to the Respondent, the obligation to have treat employees fairly within the remit of the law rests clearly with the employer. This responsibility cannot be outsourced.

In conclusion, I find that there is no reasonable or justifiable reason for dismissing the Complainant nor were any of the principles of natural justice followed. This is wholly unacceptable, and I find that complaint is well founded.

CA-00038669-001 – Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €200 in compensation for the breach of the 1997 Act for 8 Sundays worked between 12 January – 13 March 2020 which takes into consideration the time limit imposed by the Act.

CA-00038669-004 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

I find this complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €392.40 in compensation for the breach of the 1991 Act which equates to 1 week’s wages.

CA-00038669-005- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €2,092.80 in compensation for the breach of the 1997 Act. This amount equals the 21 days annual leave due to her for 2019 upon the date of termination of her employment considering the 10 days annual leave she took in January 2020.

CA-00038669-006- Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00038669-007 – Payment of Wages Act 1991

I find this complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €784.80 in compensation for the breach of the 1991 Act which equates to 2 week’s wages.

CA-00038669-008 - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find this complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the sum of €100 in compensation for the breach of the 1997 Act which covers the period of contravention from 11 January 2020 – 16 March 2020. 

CA-00038669-009 - Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00038669-010 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

Section 7 (2) of the Act allows for:

“ (2) A recommendation of a rights commissioner under subsection (1) shall do one or more of the following:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) (i) confirm all or any of the particulars contained or referred to in any statement furnished by the employer under section 3 , 4 , 5  or 6 , or

(ii) alter or add to any such statement for the purpose of correcting any inaccuracy or omission in the statement and the statement as so altered or added to shall be deemed to have been given to the employee by the employer,

(c) require the employer to give or cause to be given to the employee concerned a written statement containing such particulars as may be specified by the commissioner,

(d) order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employee's employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 ,”

Having heard the Complainant, I find the complaint is well founded and award her compensation in sum of €392.40 equating to one week’s wages for breach of the 1994 Act.

CA-00038669-011 – Unfair Dismissals Act

The jurisdiction of redress is set out in Section 7 of the Unfair Dismissals Act:-

“(1)Where an employee is dismissed and the dismissal is an unfair dismissal, the employee shall be entitled to redress consisting of whichever of the following the rights commissioner, the Tribunal or the Circuit Court, as the case may be, considers appropriate having regard to all the circumstances:

(a) re-instatement by the employer of the employee in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal on the terms and conditions on which he was employed immediately before his dismissal together with a term that the re-instatement shall be deemed to have commenced on the day of the dismissal, or

(b) re-engagement by the employer of the employee either in the position which he held immediately before his dismissal or in a different position which would be reasonably suitable for him on such terms and conditions as are reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or

(c) payment by the employer to the employee of such compensation (not exceeding in amount 104 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of this Act) in respect of any financial loss incurred by him and attributable to the dismissal as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining the amount of compensation payable under that subsection regard shall be had to—

(a) the extent (if any) to which the financial loss referred to in that subsection was attributable to an act, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employer,

(b) the extent (if any) to which the said financial loss was attributable to an action, omission or conduct by or on behalf of the employee,

(c) the measures (if any) adopted by the employee or, as the case may be, his failure to adopt measures, to mitigate the loss aforesaid, and

(d) the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer or employee with any procedure of the kind referred to in section 14 (3) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice relating to procedures regarding dismissal approved of by the Minister.”

The Complainant has sought compensation in her Complaint Form. She outlined details of her efforts to seek alternative employment after she finished her college course in “May or June 2020”.

In such circumstances, where the Complainant did not look for alternative employment until May or June 2020 , she was not available for work until this time. Consequently, Section 6 (c) (ii)of the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993 applies wherein she did not incur financial loss as she did not make herself available for work:-

“(ii) if the employee incurred no such financial loss, payment to the employee by the employer of such compensation (if any, but not exceeding in amount 4 weeks remuneration in respect of the employment from which he was dismissed calculated as aforesaid) as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances,”

On the basis of her unavailability for work from March to May or June 2020, I am awarding the Complainant compensation for her financial loss in the amount of four weeks wages in the sum of €1,569.60.

Unfair dismissal – hours of work- holidays – contract of employment– covid19 – termination of employment – availability for work