ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032891
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Johnson Oluwadare | The Rehab Group |
Representatives | Thomas J O'Halloran Solicitors | Aleksandra Tiiliakainen IBEC |
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-00043557-001 | 13/04/2021 |
|
|
|
Date of Adjudication Hearing: June 8th 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
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. 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 of 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 Hearing too place completely in public and the required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties. Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed but not availed of. Post Hearing correspondence took place.
Background:
The Complainants contract was terminated, and he alleged he did not receive 4 weeks’ notice as per his contract of employment. The Complainant and the Residential Services Manager for the Respondent provided evidence to the Hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Claimant was an employee of Rehab under contract. The contract started on the 22nd April 2020 for three months. It was extended by a further three months. On the 5 th October the complainant was informed by his Manager that there was a complaint against him by a service user. The complainant had no knowledge of the facts of the complaint and denied all allegations against him. The Complainants employment was terminated on the 16th October 2020 by phone call from his manager as he prepared to go to work. A complaint was sent by the Complainants Solicitors to the Rehab Group on the 2 1 st October 2020. On the 10th November a response was received. This was responded to on the 23 rd November. There was a term of the complainant’s contract that he was to receive four weeks notice or payment in lieu. However he didn't receive either. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant contends he “received notice on 16 October and his employment was terminated on 17 October. He did not receive 4 weeks’ notice or pay in lieu”. The Respondent entirely disputed this claim as no unlawful deduction of wages has occurred in line with the renumeration stated in the Complainant’s contract. They stated that at no point has the Complainant received a salary below his contractual salary. In making this statement the Respondent relied on the Complainant’s written contract of employment, but also the operation of this contract in reality and the established norms of the Respondent more generally. The Complainant argued he has not received payment for his notice period. However, the Respondent provided a payslip which showed the Complainant was paid 4 weeks of his notice in his final payslip.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant alleged he was not paid 4 weeks’ notice pay as per his contract of employment. Clause 17 of the contract proved for 4 weeks written notice to be given to the employee or the Company could pay this amount in lieu of notice. The Respondent submitted the Complainants final pay slip which showed he was paid 4 weeks pay in lieu of notice. The Complainant therefore has been properly paid his notice pay.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. I find the complaint not well founded. |
Dated: 4th August 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Key Words:
Deduction |