ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032923
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Junaid Altaf | Kda Accountant |
Representatives | Self-represented | Respondent Senior partner and a Manager. |
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-00043585-001 | 14/04/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. On 15/2/2022, I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021. The parties proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard, to present evidence relevant to the complaints and to cross examine witnesses. One witness gave sworn evidence for the respondent. The complainant gave sworn evidence.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent as a trainee accountant on 6 August 2019. The complainant contends that he did not receive his accrued holiday entitlement upon the termination of his employment on 31 December 2020. He works 37.50 hours a week. His gross monthly salary is €2708. He submitted his complaint to the WRC on 11 January 2021.Evidence of complainant.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Witness1: Evidence of complainant. The complainant states that he has an outstanding, accrued annual leave entitlement of four days based on a contractual leave entitlement of 21 days per annum. The respondent has categorised the 24, 29, 30 and 31 of December 2020 as leave days but the complainant was on paid notice at that time so these days, he maintains, should not be classified as leave. He only took sixteen days during the leave year. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Witness 2: Evidence of senior partner. The leave year runs from 1 January to 31 December. The witness submitted evidence showing that the complainant had been paid for 19 days of leave from the 1 April to the 31 December 2020. All staff must take 24, 29,30 and 31 December as leave and that applied to the complainant. These four days were planned, scheduled leave long before the witness terminated the complainant’s employment on 1 December. The complainant received payment in lieu of notice for the period 1-14 December and received what the respondent called paid “garden leave “for the period 14 – 23 December 2020. The respondent is unclear as to why this complaint is before the WRC |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant requests that I find that he is entitled to a further four days of accrued annual leave. Relevant law Section19 (1) of the Act of 1997 provides “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”. Cognisable period for calculation of leave. As this complaint is submitted under the Act of 1997, the only leave year and the only entitlement which I can recognise is the statutory leave year and the statutory entitlement of 20 days. The statutory leave year runs from 1 April to 31 March of the following year. So, the reckonable period for the calculation of the complainant’s leave entitlement is the 1 April – 1 December 2020 which was the date of termination of the complainant’s employment. The reckonable hours for this period amount to 1254. Applying section 9(1)(c) of the Act as the divisor yields an entitlement of 13. 3 days for this period. I find that the complainant received nineteen days of paid leave which was in excess of his statutory entitlement. I do not find this complaint to be well founded. |
Decision:
I do not find this complaint to be well founded. |
Dated: 15th June 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Statutory leave entitlements. |