ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031447
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Megan Palmer | Irish Whiskey Museum Ltd |
Representatives | None | None |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00041820-001 | 06/01/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00041822-001 | 06/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 6th January 2021, the complainant submitted complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 21st May 2021.
The complainant attended the adjudication as did a director for the respondent. This adjudication was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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:
The complainant was employed as marketing manager for the respondent between the 2nd January 2019 and the 20th July 2020. She was paid €2,846.14 per fortnight. The respondent is in the hospitality business and closed because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The complainant seeks notice pay and accrued leave entitlements. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that she had moved roles within the company group. While she latterly worked for one entity, the pay slips referred to a named company, the respondent in these proceedings. The complainant outlined that the respondent business closed on the 13th March 2020, because of the pandemic. While the complainant did some work at home, for example managing the social media accounts, she was not paid during lay-off. She was last paid on the 20th March 2020. The complainant said that she was given notice of the termination of her employment and her employment ended on the 20th July 2020. She was not paid notice pay. The complainant outlined that she raised the issue of her outstanding annual leave during this time. The respondent indicated that it could not then pay her the annual leave due, but that it would be paid. The complainant raised this issue in August and October 2020. The complainant outlined that she had not taken any annual leave in 2020 and the five days is the pro rata number of days owed to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent witness clarified that the complainant was employed by one company and latterly worked with a related company. She remained the employee of the respondent even though she had moved to a role within the parent company. The respondent witness outlined that all the businesses closed on the 13th March 2020. All staff were placed on lay-off. The respondent decided in June 2020 to terminate the employment of staff, in order that they have the opportunity to find employment elsewhere. The respondent witness outlined that the annual leave owed would be paid but that it could not now afford to. He acknowledged that the complainant was owed about €1,400 in annual leave and owed the March, May and June 2020 public holidays. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The parties confirmed the identity of the employer at the adjudication. The respondent, as stated in this decision, was the complainant’s employer. While the complainant’s role changed in that she later worked for a parent company, she was always paid by the respondent. The employer is the respondent stated in this decision. The complainant’s weekly rate of pay was €1,423.07. In respect of the claim of notice pay, the complainant was informed that her employment was ending. The complainant was last paid in March 2020 and not paid thereafter, including any payment of notice pay due. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to notice pay of one week (€1,423.07) In respect of the leave claim, it was not disputed that the complainant was due five days of annual leave. She was also not paid for the three public holidays arising during the period of lay-off (which all fell within the first 13 weeks of lay-off). Given that the complainant is owed for 8 days, this amounts to €1,621,90. The total owed by the respondent to the complainant in respect of these complaints is €3,044.97. |
Decisions:
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-00041820-001 I decide that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant compensation of €1,423.07. CA-00041822-001 I decide that the complaint pursuant to the Organisation of Working Time Act is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant compensation of €1,621.90. |
Dated: 7th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time / paid leave Payment of Wages Act / notice pay |