Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Eoin  Pust

Walsh Furniture Retail Ltd. Rightstyle  Furniture

Representatives

Citizens Information Service

 Peninsula Business Services

Act

Complaint 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-00040061-001

24/09/2020

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

CA-00040061-002

24/09/2020

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

CA-00040061-003

24/09/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2000

CA-00040061-004

24/09/2020

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

CA-00040061-005

24/09/2020

The complainant was employed as Operations Manager from September 11th, 2017, until July 7th, 2020.

He says that due tothe actions of therespondent he had no option but toleave his employment as those actions amounted tobreach of his contract of employmentand groundsforconstructivedismissal.

The complainant says he was constructively dismissed and that he was also entitled to one week’s back pay, holiday pay and payment for public holiday.

On commencement of his employment, he worked a ‘back week’ and was told it would be paid at the end of his employment. He received his first week’s salary on the September 22nd, 2017, and to date has not received his wages for the week starting September 11th.

The first issuearoseinNovember2017afterheworked the October public holiday buthad notreceived any extra pay or time in lieu for the work done. This was repeated on St. Stephens Day and New Year's Day.

The complainant raised the issue with HR in line with the grievance procedure but received no answer.

The respondent then rostered the complainant on a six-day week, once a month, without any extra pay for these days.

This continued through 2018 during which time the complainant continued to bring the issue to HR, but eventually stopped as the respondent was abusive with his answers and the complainant was made feel that his job was in jeopardy.

In total, the complainant worked St. Patrick’s Day, (twice) Easter Sunday (twice) and New Year's Days (three times) along with all public holidays without any compensation.

In early 2019 the complainant says that there was an incident when the respondent grabbed him by his beard and dragged him across the showroom. He was left in shock and embarrassed in front of his co-workers.

The respondent laughed it off when a co-worker complained to the respondent about his actions and the respondent let the complainant know that his job was in jeopardy if anyone ever raised the issue again.

On March 20th, 2020, the complainant and his fellow workers were laid off on a temporary basis due to Covid-19.

The respondent contacted him in early May about attending a meeting on May 10th, regarding the reopening of the business on June 8th.  When the complainant arrived for the meeting other employees were already back at work.

At the meeting the complainant was told by the respondent that there was no longer a job for him at, that he was being paid too much and that they intended to get someone to do the job on a lower salary.

The complainant objected on the basis that this treatment was unfair. The respondent then offered him his job back at half his contracted salary. He said he would take a pay cut of 20% because of the impact of Covid-19, but not 50%.

The respondent refused and began shouting at the complainant. The complainant then left the meeting without a resolution. On leaving the building the complainant passed his own desk to find another employee sitting at it.

The complainant was upset with the outcome of themeeting and contactedthe respondent suggesting a compromise. The respondent replied three weeks later, on June 4th withtwo differentjob offers, based mostly on commissionandworkingat theweekend.

OnJune 5th,therespondenttoldthecomplainant thatthepositions werefilled.

All other employees were back to work, and some had been working all the way through the pandemic. No other employees had been approached about a salary reduction or changes to their working conditions.

The complainant contacted the respondent on a number of occasions enquiring about his situation and when he would be coming back to work. The respondent did not reply.

The complainant received an email on the June 15th stating that some employees would be returning butnotall. During this time, he received messages fromemployees who were doing his job. The complainant continuedtorequest clarificationandcompromise.Buttherespondent wouldnotengage with him.

The complainant then received a phone call from the respondent stating that he had no intention of taking him back to work and that if he came back, he would make his life hell. He also stated that he would not be paying him any redundancy.

The anxiety and stress eventually took it toil and the complainant attended his GP, who had to prescribe medication for anxiety and stress and advised him to look for alternative employment as his present employment was detrimental to his heath.

The actions of the respondent left the complainant with no option but to resign from the job on the July 7th, 2020.

The complainant did not take annual leave in 2020 and is entitled to holiday pay from January 1st until March 20th, 2020.

On July 7th, 2020the complainantcontacted the Citizens Information Service (CIS) regarding hisoutstandingentitlements. CISwrote to the respondent requesting various payments forpublicholidays,paymentofwages andannualleave.

The respondent replied to the complainant three weeks later with a proposal for a formal grievance meeting on August 7th, 2020.

On July 29th CIS replied, re-stating the contents of the earlier letter and requesting payment. A further letter was sent making a data access request.

On August 6th CIS received a letter from the respondent’s HR Consultant seeking to arrange a formal grievance hearing.

CIS replied to the HR Consultant stating that the complainant would not attend any grievance procedure and stating that all he wanted was his entitlements.

To date the complainant has not received his entitlements or his data from the data access request.

He had worked to the best ofhis ability during his time in employment with the respondent but due tohis actions he had no option but toleave his employment.

This respondent used the circumstances of Covid -19 to force the complainant out of employment without fair procedure. The respondent refused to pay any entitled outstanding payment due to the complainant.

The complainant seeks the payment of all outstanding monies due, including bank holidays, annual leave and wages, the amount being €4,330.39. Also, the loss of earning from June 8th, 2020 until October 5th, 2020, the amount being €4,920.00.

On October 5th, 2020 the complainant found new employment.

Walsh Furniture Retail Limited operates as a furniture and related retail unit. The complainant was employed as an Operations Manager from September 11th, 2017.

Preliminary issues arise about whether certain of the complaints have been submitted within the statutory period.

Section 27 Organisation of Working Time Act requires a complaint to be submitted within six months.

   The complainant details the contravention being an alleged failure to pay for public holidays. The beginning of the contravention is identified in the complainant’s submission as being November 2017.

The respondent relies on the High Court judgement in HSE -v- McDermott [2014] IEHC 331 where the relevant period for the purpose of claims under the similar conditions applied to the Payments of Wages Act was extensively considered. Hogan J. concluded as follows:

“For the purposes of this limitation period, everything turns, accordingly on the manner in which the complaint is framed by the employee. If for example, the employer has been unlawfully making deductions for a three-year period, then provided that the complaint which has been presented relates to a period of six months beginning “on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”, the complaint will nonetheless be in time. It follows, therefore, that if an employer has been making deduction X from the monthly salary of the employee since January 2010, a complaint which relates to deductions made from January 2014 onwards and which is presented to the Rights Commissioner in June 2014 will still be in time for the purposes of s. 6(4). If, on the other hand, the complaint was to have been framed in a different manner, such that it related to the period from January 2010 onwards, it would then have been out if time.”

In light of this, the respondent submits that the complainant has failed to provide a timeframe within the wording of his claim and therefore the claim is unlawful pursuant to the decision in McDermott.

The respondent refers to Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act (2015) which states:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred   to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

As the complainant has failed to define in his complaint when the contravention began, it is submitted that the cognisable period should be limited to the six months prior to the complaint being lodged.

The complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on September 24th, 2020 which would make the cognisable period from March 24, 2020 to the date the claim was lodged.

Furthermore, the complainant’s submission refers to the underpayment being brought to the attention of the respondent owner in November 2019.

The respondent relies on to the High Court cases of Moran –v- The Employment Appeals Tribunal IEHC 154 and Health Service Executive –v- McDermot IEHC 331, where the court was asked to consider the meaning of “within the period of six months  beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”.

The complainant has not referred this complaint to the WRC within six months from date of the contravention. The respondent submits that this claim is out of time and statute barred.

The complainant was placed on temporary lay off in March of 2020 due to the global pandemic and the closure of the company at the direction of the Irish government.

In light of public health guidelines, the respondent was left with no alternative but to make amendments to the structure of his business in a means of surviving such challenging times.

As a result of a restructure of the Company, Mr Walsh, the owner contacted the complainant on June 4th, 2020 and offered him a sales position so that the complainant could avail of employment until the situation could give rise to his original employment.

The complainant rejected this offer and the respondent further offered him a position within the customer service and accounts team, in a message on June 5th, 2020. The complainant responded that he was “happy to wait until Phase 2, 3, 4 or 5 until the company gets back on its feet to reprise my role.”

Email correspondence between the complainant and the respondent was submitted which sets out the position of each party as of June 11th, 2020. The respondent furnished the letter dated June 15th to the complainant (also submitted).

The complainant furnished the letter dated 7 July 2020 to the respondent via the CIS, setting out his resignation and several grievances.

The respondent responded to the complainant requesting that he reconsider his position and directed the complainant to the internal grievance procedure, setting out a date and time for the complainant to have his grievances considered.

The CIS wrote to the respondent on July 29th requesting the complainant to exhaust internal grievance procedures but by then the complainant had initiated proceedings   in the WRC, thereby failing to exhaust internal procedures, in line with the employee handbook.

To encouraging the complainant to engage with its internal grievance procedure, the respondent engaged the services of an external HR service which wrote to the complainant on August 6th, 2020, setting out the proposed way forward.

The complainant through his representative responded on the August 10th, 2020, replying that he “had no interest” in engaging in an internal grievance procedure.

On foot of this letter, the respondent had no alternative to accept the complainant’s resignation as per the letter dated 20 August 2020.

CA- 00040061 -003 Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The respondent submits that there has been no contravention of the Act that gives rise to a valid complaint under section 5 of the Act.

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant has been paid for the back week worked evidence was heard and submitted.

The respondent company ceased operations on March 18th, 2020. The payment or “wage run” was carried out as normal for the week of the March 5th, 2020. The next payment was carried out on the day the business ceased operating on the 18 March and the relevant payslip was submitted.

The outstanding monies due to the employees for the 16,1 7 and 18 March were paid on the 26 March 2020 and written evidence was again submitted.

It is our respectful submission that the complainant is not due any money in respect of back payment.

CA- 00040061 -001 Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The complainant within his claim has submitted his entitlement to annual leave due to him from January 2020 to March 2020, this is not disputed by the respondent and will be furnished to the complainant.

CA- 00040061 -002 Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The complainant states that an alleged contravention of the 1997 Act occurred in November 2017. This claim should be dismissed as it has not been made within the statutory time limits.

The respondent refers on the preliminary point and says that any award made should be limited to monies due and owing from March 24th, 2020 to September 24th, 2020 within which period the following public holidays occurred: April 13th, May 4th and June 1st.

CA – 00040062-004 Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of     Employment) Regulations 2000. The complainant has brought a claim under the above-named Regulation. The respondent denies that any redundancies, collective or individual were carried out by the company and refence to these Acts is misplaced.

The respondent offered the complainant several positions including a sales position and a role on the customer service and accounts team.

An email from the respondent to the complainant contained an offer to return to work as part of a skeleton staff and the complainant was offered two alternative positions, which he refused. Considering covid-19 and the challenges that faced all companies and business owners, the respondent had to make changes to the structure of the company to align with the governmental advice.

The complainant was offered a sales position and a position within the customer service and accounts department. While neither of these roles were his role prior to the pandemic, the respondent company was offering this as a means of ensuring their staff could return to work and generate an income.

As noted above, the complainant did not wish to take up the sales and or customer services position and said he was “happy to wait until Phase 2, 3, 4, or 5 until the company gets back on its feet to reprise my role”.

The respondent furnished the letter, dated 15 June 2020, to the complainant setting out the position of the Company.

A letter from CIS was received in response of the respondent’s communication, setting out grievances of the complainant and the complainant issued his resignation on the July 7th, 2020. It remains the respondent’s position that the complainant merely informed Mr Walsh that he was leaving his position and made no attempt to use the internal procedure.

It is the respondent’s submission that no redundancy situation existed and therefore there is no breach of any regulation or Act in respect of same.

CA – 00040061 -005 Section 8, Unfair Dismissals Act

Thecomplainantisallegingthathewasconstructivelydismissedbytherespondent.

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act as amended defines constructive dismissal as, “the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer.”

The respondent refers to the case of Debbie Kearns v Silverfern Properties Ltd. [2013] 2 JIEC 0701 the EAT held that “In order to succeed in a claim of constructive  dismissal a claimant must show, that either their contractual terms were altered in such a way, going to the root of the contract, as to justify their claim or the conduct of the employer was so unreasonable as to justify the claim of constructive dismissal.”

It is submitted in the present case that the complainant resigned as he was not willing to take up alternative offers of employment within the respondent company.

The respondent tried to accommodate the complainant regarding his employment by offering him a sales position and when this was rejected an additional offer of a position within the customer service and accounts team.

The respondent refers to the decision of An Employee v Employer (UD720/2006) where the Tribunal held that “the claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case.”

It is submitted in the present case that the respondent made real and genuine efforts to deal with the complainant’s issues when they came to light. They engaged an external body to engage an internal grievance procedure in a means of providing an impartial and external investigator.

In the decision of Donegan v Co. Limerick VEC (UD828/2011) the Tribunal held it was held that “the respondent’s conduct was not so unfair or damaging to the claimant’s rights and entitlements that she had no option but to resign from her position.”

It is submitted that the fact the complainant resigned without ever engaging in the grievance process is fatal to his case.

Furthermore, it is submitted that the complainant was asked to reconsider his resignation and refused to do, even after being offered the grievance procedure.

The respondent refers to the Employment Appeals Tribunal decisions of Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981) (taken from Mary Redmond, Dismissal Law in Ireland, 2nd Edition), where the Tribunal found that the claimant had not acted reasonably in resigning without first having “substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints” and Higgins v Donnelly Mirrors Ltd. (UD 104/1979) (taken from Mary Redmond, Dismissal Law in Ireland, 2nd Edition) where the claimant’s claim for constructive dismissal was rejected as she had failed to discharge the heavy onus of proof she bore.

The complainant within his submission refers to an incident that occurred in 2019.  The respondent disputes this incident as set out in the complainant’s   submission as not having happened.

Furthermore, the respondent says that the complainant and Mr Walsh had a friendly and open line of communication, as evidenced by the text messages submitted in evidence, commencing in 2017.  No dispute or issue was contained within these messages.

The complainant at no time raised any grievance as contained in his submission to the respondent or engaged in any internal grievance procedure.

In light of the above, the complaint of Unfair Dismissal is not well founded and should fail.

Despite the impact of the pandemic, it remains the respondent’s position that should the complainant be found to have failed to mitigate his losses, he should have no great excuse for same. The complainant was in a favourable position with his experience.

The key events in the case leading up to the termination of employment and the complaint of constructive dismissal took place within a relatively short timeframe.

The complainant was laid off on March 20th.

There is a background of events alleged to have taken place before this, but the critical period is between May 10th, when the complainant was invited to the meeting about a possible return to work, and July 7th when he resigned his position; approximately eight weeks later.

The accounts of what happened at that meeting differ although in broad terms the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the complainant’s return to work.

He says he was told there was no job for him and that he was offered one on a significantly worse basis; at 50% of his pay and with some worse conditions. He said he would have agreed to a 20% reduction but no more than that and the meeting ended without agreement.

The visit was not helped, from the complainant’s point of view, by seeing a person working at his desk, who he assumed, (wrongly on the basis of the evidence at the hearing) to have taken his job. The respondent’s direct evidence was that the person in question was working without payment and had not taken the complainant’s position.

Unfortunately, it seems as if the complainant’s erroneous interpretation of what he saw made a contribution to the difficulties that followed.

Nothing happened, apparently until early June when, around the 4th and 5th new offers of employment were made to the complainant which were not acceptable either. The respondent says that the complainant told him that he would await improvements in the general public health situation and review the situation then.

This suggests he was content to remain at home in receipt of the pandemic payments.

There was a further communication from the respondent on June 15th regarding a return to work.

It seems that this letter was the trigger for the complainant’s resignation, although it was relatively cordial and business-like, setting out the difficulties being faced by the respondent in returning the business to something resembling normal trading.

The complainant consulted the Citizen’s Information Service following this and, some days later, resigned on July 7th. The resignation letter was sent by the CIS and made certain serious allegations and demands which included ‘bullying, cyber bullying and verbal and physical abuse’.

It did not seek any action on these (nor, did it seek the restoration of the complainant to his job) other than insisting on the payment of entitlements it alleged were outstanding. It stated that the termination of the contract by the complainant was on the grounds of constructive dismissal.

The respondent gave evidence about the general difficulty in returning his business to something approaching normal operation and that he was trading in a position of some uncertainty about staffing in particular.

He spoke well of the complainant’s skillset, which he said he needed, but he did not need him in his previous role of Operations Manager.

It is hard not to see that what happened as a poorly managed process, in which the respondent, even allowing for the uncertainty of the times, made a bad fist of being open and clear with the complainant, one of his senior managers.

While the complainant insists that he was doing his best to find out what was going on, some allowance must be made for the quite exceptional trading circumstances in which, very possibly, the respondent did not know. (This is essentially what the respondent’s letter of June 15th stated).

Similarly, the complainant did not handle the situation well either, and probably needed better advice in the aftermath of the June 15th communication than whatever led him to resign his position. (It is not known what advice he got, and he may have made an entirely independent decision to do so, but resignation at that stage was premature and ill-advised).

It is far from clear why the complainant could not have remained on the pandemic support payment, as he indicated his intention to, until the situation regarding his employment crystallised one way or the other.

What happened after July 7th is irrelevant to the complaint of constructive dismissal, but it is another mess.

The respondent sought to mend its hand by initiating a grievance procedure, for which it deserves some credit, and the complainant rather peremptorily rejected it, for which he deserves very little, instead making the demands which form the basis of this set of complaints.

Remote as it may appear, the intervention of an external HR provider held out some hope that the issues between the parties could have become the subject of some reconciliation efforts but, as noted, that is of no relevance to the complainant’s case, although it may have been of assistance in resolving it at the time.

The respondent has set out the relevant legal authorities above.

The Unfair Dismissals Act and the resulting jurisprudence have set a high bar in relation to what will justify the termination of any contract of employment.

It is, after all, a breach of a legally binding contract.

When an employer wishes to terminate the contract of employment, there must be cause, a fair process must have been followed and the decision to dismiss must be within the range of reasonable sanctions having regard to the conduct giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings.

The most common source of complaints under the Act is when an employer has terminated the employment, and the criteria referred to are then the key tests as to whether the dismissal has been a fair one.

On the other hand, and in general, it is relatively easy for an employee to terminate their employment by simply giving notice of their intention to do so and then resigning.

In most, if not all cases an action for breach of the employment contract is unlikely to arise.

A different situation arises when an employee terminates the contract of employment but then makes a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal that is a different matter.

The respondent referred to the views of Dr Mary Redmond above and I do so again for convenience.  ‘Dismissal Law in Ireland’ Dr Redmond has said (at p340)

There is something of a mirror image between constructive dismissal and ordinary dismissal. Just as an employer for reasons of fairness and natural justice must go through disciplinary procedures before dismissing, so true an employee should invoke the employer’s grievance procedures in an effort to resolve his grievance, The duty is an imperative in employee resignations. Where grievance procedures exist they should be followed: Conway v Ulster bank Limited. In Conway the EAT considered that the claimant did not act reasonably in resigning and without first having ‘substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints

The Supreme Court has said that;

 ‘The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.’

 Per Finnegan J in Berber v Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61

In such cases the critical issue is the behaviour of the employer, although the employee’s behaviour must also be considered. Generally, this reference to the employer’s conduct is taken to require an assessment of whether the employer’s conduct has been so intolerable that it justifies the complainant’s resignation.

In other words, has it been at a level and of a nature that represents a repudiation of the contract of employment?

In this case, the complainant has amplified his complaint with references to incidents alleged to have taken place long before the events of May to July 2020. I discount these as having no bearing on the complaint.

There were only two; one in ‘late 2018’ and the other in ‘early 2019’; this being the greatest precision the complainant could manage about when they even occurred.

His failure to pursue these as a grievance at any time before the pandemic robs them of any credibility or relevance and he cannot rely on them in any way to ground his decision to break his contract of employment in July 2020. 

And yet these were probably the incidents on which the author of the CIS letter of July 7th was relying in making allegations of bullying and abuse and the confident assertion in the resignation letter that it was a case of constructive dismissal.

That confidence was badly misplaced. There is nothing on the facts of this case that comes close to meeting the tests set out in the jurisprudence and justifying the complainant in breaking his contract of employment.

Within a few days of receiving the letter of June 15th he had, without any further contact with the respondent, resigned his position. This falls a long way short of the responsibility to exhaust internal procedures to resolve any grievance he had, and this should have been very clear to any person to whom he turned for advice.

On the other hand, even if the exchanges between the parties were strained in early June the respondent’s evidence about the challenges facing his business will ring true to anyone living in Ireland at that time.

Accordingly, the complainant has not met the necessary burden of proof in relation to his complaint of unfair dismissal. It is not well founded and is not upheld

Regarding his other complaints, CA-00040061-001 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997) the respondent has conceded that he is due annual leave in respect of the period from January 2020 to March 2020.

In relation to complaint CA- 00040061-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997), I accept that the cognisable period for this complaint is from March 25th, 2020 to the date of the complaint on September 24th, 2020.

As his employment concluded on July 7th only tree public holidays feel within that period on April 13th, May 4th and June 1st and his complaint is well founded in respect of these dates.

Complaint CA- 00040061-003 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 concerned a complaint by the complainant that he had not been paid for a week which dated back to the commencement of his employment. 

The employer submitted that he carried out a “wage run” for the week of the March 5th, 2020. The next payment was carried out on the day the business ceased operating on March 18th and the relevant payslip was submitted and that the outstanding monies due to the complainant and other employees for March 16th, 17th and 18th were paid on the 26 March 2020 and written evidence was again submitted.

The complainant has not made out a convincing case that these wages are outstanding.

Complaint CA–00040062-004 was submitted under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of Employment Regulations 2000 and appears to have been made in error. In any event it is misconceived as these regulations relate to redundancies.

In summary, complaint CA-00040061-001 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997) is well founded and on the basis of the complainant’s service in that period; approximately twelve weeks.  I have used a working week of forty hours and an hourly rate of pay of €21.25 as stated on the complaint form to calculate his entitlement and this entitles him to thirty-eight hours payment for his annual leave entitlement.

In relation to complaint CA- 00040061-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, public holidays) the complainant’s complaint is well founded in respect of three public holidays.

Regarding Complaint CA- 00040061-003 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in respect of the ‘back week’. there was a conflict in the evidence on whether the complainant did receive the payment. On balance, and on the basis of the evidence I believe he did, and this complaint is not well founded

Complaint CA–00040062-004 was submitted under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of   Employment) Regulations 2000 and appears to have been made in error.

Complaint CA–00040062-005 is the substantive complaint related to constrictive dismissal. I find that the complainant was not constructively dismissed.

Complaint CA-00040061-001 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997) is well founded and I award him thirty-eight hours payment in respect of his annual leave entitlement. I award him a payment of €807.50.

In relation to complaint CA- 00040061-002 (Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, public holidays) the complainant’s complaint is well founded in respect of three public holidays and I award him a payment of €510.00.

Complaint CA- 00040061-003 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is not well founded

Complaint CA–00040062-004 under Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Protection of   Employment) Regulations 2000 is not well founded.

Regarding Complaint CA–00040062-005 the complainant was not unfairly constructively dismissed.

Constructive dismissal.