ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032270
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Eoin Devlin | JJ Kavanagh & Sons |
Representatives |
| Dorothy Donovan B.L. |
Complaint(s):
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-00042195-001 | 28/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042195-002 | 28/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00042195-004 | 28/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and witness for the respondent gave evidence under affirmation. CA-0042195-004 was withdrawn on the day of the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-0042195-001 The complainant submitted that he was not paid properly for his holiday entitlements, as another driver was paid a higher rate for his holidays. CA-0042195-002 The complainant submitted that the respondent calculated his annual leave improperly in that he submitted that the holidays accrued before he was out on the pandemic unemployment payment and he sought to be paid in accordance with when the holidays accrued rather than when they were taken. The complainant seeks to have the matter rectified. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-0042195-001 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid the received his proper holiday entitlements and the reference to another driver refers to another case that was settled. CA-0042195-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid for his holiday entitlements in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time act in that the complainant did not accrue any holiday entitlements for the period during which he was on layoff. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 states that 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): Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater. CA-0042195-001 The respondent argued that notwithstanding which method was used, the complainant’s entitlement remained the same, i.e. 4 working weeks. The driver to which the complainant referred was paid as a result of a settlement agreement to a different case. The respondent argued that the settlement in a different case was irrelevant and that the complainant’s statutory entitlements were calculated in the correct manner. The complainant also argued that his annual leave entitlement should continue to accrue while he is on layoff. I am not satisfied that this is the case Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the complainant’s entitlement was 4 working weeks and I find that the complainant was paid for his annual leave entitlement. I find that this complaint was not well founded. CA-0042195-002 The complainant submitted that his holidays taken during the pandemic period should have been paid at the pre-pandemic rate. The respondent submitted that it followed the applicable Revenue guidelines as to payments made to employees during that period. The respondent paid the complainant at the rate applicable during that period for holidays taken during that period. I am not satisfied that the complainant has established that he was not paid his annual leave /holiday entitlements. I find that this complaint was not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-0042195-001 Having regard to all the written and oral submission, my decision is that this complaint is not well founded. CA-0042195-002 The complainant argued that his annual leave entitlement should continue to accrue while he is on layoff. I am not satisfied that this is the case |
Dated: 14th October 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time, not well founded. |