ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035843
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Katarzyna Szumna | Costern Unlimited Trinity Care |
Representatives | N/A | Tommy Cummins Adare Human Resource Management |
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-00046997-001 | 05/11/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00046997-002 | 05/11/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00047003-001 | 05/11/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
The complainant was employed with the respondent and was in receipt of an hourly rate of €11.56 which rose to €12.56 when the rate was reviewed. The complainant gave her evidence under affirmation while two witnesses for the respondent gave evidence under oath. The parties were offered the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00046997-001 The complainant submitted that she was not paid for her contractual entitlement of 20 days annual leave and was not paid for 3 days of leave that she carried over from the previous year. CA-00046997-002 The complainant submitted that she had a contractual entitlement to 20 days annual leave and was only given 14 days. She also submitted that she was not given 3 days that she carried over from the previous year. CA-00047003-001 The complainant submitted that she was no paid appropriately for Public Holidays that she worked. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00046997-001 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid for all of her annual leave entitlement as outlined under the Organisation of Working Time Act. She was paid in accordance with Section 19(1)(a) of the Actin that she was paid a level equal to “4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours”. CA-00046997-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid for all of her annual leave entitlement as outlined under the Organisation of Working Time Act. CA-00047003-001 The respondent submitted that although the complainant did not work any Public Holidays during the period envisaged under the Acts, she was paid in accordance with SI 475/1997 Organisation of Working Time (Determination of Pay for Holidays) Regulations, 1997. She was paid a sum equal to one fifth of the average weekly pay for each public holiday that occurred during her employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00046997-001 Although the complainants contract mentions an annual leave allowance of 20 days, the respondent submitted that she was given annual leave entitlements in accordance with the Act, four working weeks per year. The complainant indicated that the annual leave allowance was equivalent to four working weeks per year but submitted that as she worked shift work of twelve hours (seven days over a fortnight), she should have been given 20 twelve hour shifts as annual leave. Having regard to all the evidence submitted and to the content of Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded the level of annual leave as outlined in the Act. Accordingly, I find that the compliant was not well founded. CA-00046997-002 The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid for 24 hours of annual leave for the 2020 period, this was not disputed by the complainant. Having regard to all the evidence submitted and to the content of Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded the level of annual leave as outlined in the Act. Accordingly, I find that the compliant was not well founded. CA-00047003-001 The respondent submitted that the complainant was not working on any of the Public Holidays that occurred the period encompassed by the Act but was paid the correct amount in accordance with the regulations. The complainant did not dispute this submission. Having regard to all the evidence submitted and to the content of Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, I am satisfied that the complainant was afforded the level of payment for being employed on public holidays as outlined in the Act and Regulations. Accordingly, I find that the compliant 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-00046997-001 Having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00046997-002 Having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00047003-001 Having considered all the written and oral evidence provided in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Organisation of Working Time Act – shift work – annual leave allowance – pay for public holidays |