ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030205
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daiva Dabuzinskaite | Ballsbridge Leisure Investment Ltd. t/a Intercontinental Dublin |
Representatives | James Daly BL instructed by Powderly Solicitors | Aoife McDonnell |
Complaint:
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-00040421-001 | 15/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/10/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
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.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The complainant attended the remote hearing and was represented by James Daly BL and Sophie Austen Byrne of Powderly Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Aoife McDonnel of IBEC and Lorraine Harmon, HR Manager of the Intercontinental Dublin and in attendance was Diana Ursel of IBEC and Siobhan Nolan of the Intercontinental Dublin. The complainant and Ms Harmon gave evidence on oath/affirmation. Questions were asked of and answered by both witnesses.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent hotel on 28 May 2007. She was employed as a room attendant, working 39 hours per week and was paid €21,347 gross per year. The complainant was promoted to a supervisory role in 2016. In 2018 she was promoted to Assistant Manager. In 2020 the complainant’s salary was €31,000 per year gross for working a 39-hour week.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the hotel was required to close temporarily at the end of March 2020. The complainant was laid off and received the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP) from 30 March 2020.
At the end of June 2020, the complainant was requested to return to work on reduced hours and to accept a reduced salary of €29,600 gross, a reduction of 4.5%. The complainant did not return to work. The complainant claims she was ill and unable to work, and she submitted medical certificates to the respondent. The complainant resigned 04 October 2020. The complainant claims that at her date of resignation she was due payment of €6,058.41 in respect of 50.8 days annual leave and €1,908.16 in respect of 16 days of public holidays accrued.
The respondent submits that there was no breach of the Act, and that the complainant was paid all that she was owed for annual leave and public holidays on 09 October 2020.
The complainant submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 October 2020.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Preliminary Issue The complainant requests that the cognisable period in respect of her claim be extended to twelve months pursuant to section 41 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. The complainant submits she had reasonable cause for failing to bring her claim at an earlier date. It was the custom and practice of the respondent to roll entitlements from year to year indefinitely. There was no reason for the complainant to issue a claim at an earlier date, because she believed that her entitlements were being kept safe for her by the respondent. Substantive Claim The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 28 May 2007. She was initially employed as a room attendant and was subsequently promoted to supervisor and then to Assistant Manager. In 2020 the complainant’s salary was €31,000 per year for working a 39-hour week. The complainant asserts that she frequently worked 50 to 55 hours per week. The complainant asserts that it was the custom and practice within the respondent company that employees were not paid for overtime worked but rather had to take time off in lieu of payment. Similarly, arrears of public holidays and annual leave were to be taken as time off in lieu and such arrears of entitlements were to run from year to year. The complainant found it difficult to obtain permission to take much time off and was never able to take more than two weeks off at a time. As a result, the complainant was never able to reduce the arrears of overtime and leave due to her. The complainant asserts that she took none of her annual leave in the leave year 2019/2020. She was off work for seventeen days, all of which came from arrears. In the leave year 2020/2021 the complainant took no annual leave. The complainant asserts she was medically certified as unable to work from 01 June to 04 October 2020. As she was medically certified as unfit to work her entitlement to annual leave accrued during that period. On 22 June 2020 the complainant spoke with the Head of Housekeeping and the HR Manager. She was informed that when the hotel re-opened her hours would be reduced to four days per week. She was also informed she would no longer be solely working in the office but would have to clean bedrooms in addition to other duties. The complainant received a letter, dated 24 June 2020, informing her of the salary cut of 4.5% effective from 01 July. In addition, her hours of work would be reduced and paid pro rata based on the new lower salary. The complainant was asked to sign the letter to denote understanding and acceptance of the new conditions. The complainant refused to co-operate with the new conditions. She had agreed a temporary wage cut in 2008 and that cut had never been restored. She put a proposal to the respondent that in order to reduce the hundreds of hours she was owed she would remain on her full salary of €31,000 but she would work shorter hours. The respondent refused her proposal. The respondent failed to cooperate in processing the complainant’s medical certificates or contacting the Department of Social Protection. The complainant received no pay from the respondent after March 2020. As a result of the proposed pay cut, shorter hours and the stress and anxiety of the situation the complainant felt she had no options but to resign from her employment. She resigned effective 04 October 2020. The complainant claims 50.8 days of annual leave at the rate of €119.26 per day, amounting to €6,058.41. Further, the complainant claims 16 days of public holidays at the rate of €119.26 per day, amounting to €1,908.16. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent is a five-star hotel located in Ballsbridge, Dublin. The complainant was employed by the respondent from 28 May 2007 until she resigned on 04 October 2020. She was initially employed as a Housekeeping Attendant, was promoted to a Supervisory role in 2016 and promoted to an Assistant Manager role in 2018. In 2020 the complainant earned a salary of €31,000 per year. Part of the complainant’s duties as Assistant Manager was the tracking and completing the payroll and updating holiday balances. In March 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the hotel was required to close temporarily. On 01 April 2020 the complainant was informed she would be placed on temporary lay-off, in line with her contract of employment. In late June 2020 as the hotel was preparing to reopen the complainant was asked to return to work on reduced hours and to take a salary reduction of 4.5% effective 01 July 2020. These requests are set out in a letter, dated 24 June 2020, from the General Manager to the complainant. The complainant informed the respondent that she did not want to return to work on these terms as, financially, it was more beneficial to stay on layoff and claim the PUP at a rate of €350 per week. Therefore, the complainant did not return to work and remained on lay-off. On 16 July 2020 the respondent received medical certificates from the complainant. The respondent informed the complainant that the hotel does not issue sick pay when an employee is on lay-off. The respondent received nothing further from the complainant until her notice of resignation on 25 September 2020. Her resignation was effective 04 October 2020, and she was paid all balances owed to her, through payroll on 09 October 2020. Annual Leave The complainant requires all employees to sign off on their annual leave balances each January. This is to ensure that the correct amount of annual leave is carried over. The complainant accepted and signed for her carried balance in January 2020. The signed sheet shows a carry over of 327.65 hours for accrued annual leave. The complainant was credited with a carry over of 328.25 in the final calculation. The complainant worked 475.48 hours in 2020. This is calculated to accrue 40.39 hours annual leave in 2020. The complainant had a carry over balance of 328.25 hours from 2019. The total annual leave accrued for 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 was 368.64 hours (being 328.25 plus 40.39). The complainant took 2 days leave in 2020, leaving a balance due of 353.04 hours. The complainant was paid for 353.04 hours in payroll on 09 October 2020. A payment of €5,397.98 gross. Annual leave accrues during time worked. Annual leave does not accrue during a period of layoff. Public Holidays In January 2020 the complainant signed the carry over balance of 79.70 hours for public holidays. The complainant accrued 39 hours for public holidays in 2020. The total accrued was therefore 118.70 (79.70 plus 39). The complainant took 9 days off work in 2020, leaving a balance due of 48. 50. The complainant was paid for 48.40 in payroll on 09 October 2020. A payment of €740.04 gross.
Sick Pay There is no statutory entitlement to sick pay in the Organisation of Working Time Act, The complainant was on layoff from 01 April to her date of termination 04 October 2020. During a period of layoff, the employment contract is suspended and so an employee has no entitlement to any benefit outlined in the contract of employment. The complainant chose to further suspend her contract of employment by remaining on layoff, after she was offered work. Conclusion The respondent submitted that there was no breach of the Act and the complainant had been paid all that was owed to her at the date of termination.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00040421 Complaint submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Preliminary Issue The complainant requests that the cognisable period in respect of her claim be extended to twelve months. Section 41(6) and (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides as follows: (6) 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 DirectorGeneral after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. (8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 October 2020. The complaint relates to payment for public holidays and annual leave accrued at the date of termination. The statutory leave year, as per the definition in section 2 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, begins on 01 April. A claim for annual leave or payment for annual leave must be brought within six months of the date of contravention or within six months of the last day of the leave year. (See the decision of Lavan J in Royal Liver Assurance Ltd v Macken [2002] 4 IR 428). In the same judgement it was held that complaints concerning public holiday entitlements must be brought within six months of the date of the public holiday. This complaint spans the leave years 2019/2020 and 2020/2021. The leave year 2019/2020 ended on 31 March 2020. That is over six months before the complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 October 2020. The complainant submits that there was reasonable cause as to why the complaint was not submitted in time. It was submitted that it was the custom and practice of the respondent to allow annual leave to roll over entitlements from year to year indefinitely and the complainant believed her entitlements were being kept safe for her by the respondent. The respondent’s representative stated that there was no reasonable cause for such extension as she had signed off the balance of leave accrued, and she could have raised this issue at an earlier stage. The respondent’s representative acknowledged that it would suffer no prejudice if the cognisable period was extended. The issue of what is reasonable cause was considered by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll DWT 0338. The Court stated: It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time. The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons. Where reasonable cause is shown the Court must still consider if it is appropriate in the circumstances to exercise its discretion in favour of granting an extension of time. Here the Court should consider if the respondent has suffered prejudice by the delay and should also consider if the claimant has a good arguable case. I have considered carefully the submissions and I note that it was not disputed that it was the custom and practice of the respondent to allow annual leave to roll over. This is confirmed by the amount of leave recorded as rolling over from 2019 to 2020 in the documents submitted by the respondent. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that it was reasonable for the complainant to believe her entitlements would continue to roll over. I note that this complaint arose in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the unexpected and unplanned temporary closure of the hotel. I also note that the complainant received her final payroll payment on 09 October 2020 and submitted her complaint on 15 October 2020, therefor there was no delay by the complainant in making her complaint once she became aware of the payments made to her. I am satisfied that the complainant has shown reasonable cause as to why the complaint was not submitted within six months of the end of the statutory leave year 2019/2020. I extend the cognisable time to allow me to investigate the complaint concerning payment on termination of employment for annual leave for the leave year 2019/2020, ending on 31 March 20202, together with the leave year 2020/2021 ending on the date of termination, 04 October 2020.
Substantive Issue The complainant resigned from her employment on 04 October 2020. The complainant claims payment for 50.8 days annual leave and 16 days public holidays due to her at her date of termination. Compensation for annual leave that remains to be granted at the date of termination is provided for in section 23 of the Act. The entitlement to annual leave and public holiday leave is set out in sections 19 and 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act as follows: 19.— (1) 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 21.— (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely— (a) a paid day off on that day, (b) a paid day off within a month of that day, (c) an additional day of annual leave, (d) an additional day’s pay: Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom. Times and pay for annual leave. 20.— (1) The times at which annual leave is granted to an employee shall be determined by his or her employer having regard to work requirements and subject— (a) to the employer taking into account— (i) the need for the employee to reconcile work and any family responsibilities, (ii) the opportunities for rest and recreation available to the employee, (b) to the employer having consulted the employee or the trade union (if any) of which he or she is a member, not later than 1 month before the day on which the annual leave or, as the case may be, the portion thereof concerned is due to commence, and (c) to the leave being granted— (i) within the leave year to which it relates, (ii) with the consent of the employee, within the period of 6 months after the end of that leave year, or (iii) where the employee— (I) is, due to illness, unable to take all or any part of his or her annual leave during that leave year or the period specified in subparagraph (ii), and (II) has provided a certificate of a registered medical practitioner in respect of that illness to his or her employer, within the period of 15 months after the end of that leave year. The maximum statutory entitlement to annual leave is 4 working weeks per year, and the leave is to be granted to the employee within the leave year, 01 April to 31 March. With the consent of the employee leave may be carried over to be taken within the period of 6 months after the end of the relevant leave year. The complainant asserted she did not take annual leave in the 2019/2020 leave year. That would mean she carried forward 4 weeks leave into 2020/2021. The complainant asserted she did not take annual leave in 2020/2021 leave year. In the leave year 2020/2021 the complainant was on temporary lay-off from 01 April until the date of her resignation on 04 October 2020. Annual leave does not accrue during a period of temporary lay-off, so no leave accrued to her in the 2020/2021 leave year. The complainant contends that she was medically certified as unable to attend work from 01 June 2020 and, as an employee on sick leave normally continues to accrue annual leave during a period of medically certified sick leave, she was entitled to accrue leave from 01 June to 04 October 2020. Oral Evidence The Complainant The complainant gave evidence and described her work, starting in 2007. She stated that in her first job as a room attendant she normally worked a 39-hour week, as in her contract. She was promoted to a Supervisory role in 2016 and she was then working up to 50 hours per week. In 2018 she was promoted to Assistant Manager, and she worked between 50 and 55 hours per week. Her employment contract was for 39 hours per week. The complainant stated that she was entitled to 20- or 21-days annual leave per year but not all leave was taken in the year and the unused balance was rolled over into the following year. She was not paid for untaken leave, public holidays or overtime as employees were expected to take time in lieu of payment or leave. In 2017 she had 500 hours due to her and a similarly high number of hours in the following year. After 2017 the complainant said it was more difficult to get time off in lieu. She did reduce her public holiday balance but not her annual leave or overtime balance. The complainant stated that she expected to be able to take all the time due to her if she remained in employment and if she left, she expected to be paid for all the outstanding balance. The complainant described how she had managed the payroll returns when she was Assistant Manager. The system changed in 2018 and she could no longer check all the balances as with the previous system. The complainant referred to screen shots exhibited with the written submission and stated that these were taken on 15 March 2020 and showed annual leave carried forward from 2019 of 328.27 hours and 67.29 hours for the current year, giving a total of 395.56 hours. The screen shot also shows 15.60 hours taken leaving a balance of 379.96 unallocated hours. The complainant stated that she was asked to take 5 days leave from 16 March 2020 and she was paid for those days. Cross Examination The complainant was asked if she had signed off the balance of leave due to her at the start of January 2020, being 327.65 hours of annual leave, 79.70 hours for public holidays and 54.60 hours for time in lieu. The complainant acknowledged that she had signed the document confirming the balances to be correct as of 01 January 2020. The HR Manager The respondent’s HR Manager gave evidence that the new TMS system went live on 01 January 2020. There were some issues with the system and not all the balances shown were correct. The screen shot exhibited by the complaint was incorrect. The figures shown on the spreadsheet exhibited in the respondent’s submission was correct. The carryover balance for annual leave was 328.27 and the leave accrued from January to March 2020 was 40.39. The figure shown on the complainant’s screen shot of 67.29 hours accrued between January and March 2020 was incorrect. She stated that it was not know when the screenshot was taken. The HR Manager stated that the General Manager, the Finance Manager and the HR Manager could all access the system for the whole operation. Department managers could only access information about their own department. Cross Examination In response to questions the HR Manager confirmed that she did not know when the complainant’s screenshot was taken, but she stated the figures shown were not correct. The figures shown on the respondent’s spreadsheet were correct and were consistent with the balances signed off as correct by the complainant in January 2020. The complainant’s representative submitted that there was a conflict on the facts and that the figures contained on the TMS screen shots were more reliable than the respondent’s excel spreadsheet that contained manual entries. He submitted that the complainant’s evidence was more dependable than the documents provided by the respondent. He also noted the documents submitted by the respondent had not been put to the complainant in cross examination. The respondent’s representative submitted that the screen shots were undated and could not be relied upon. The respondent’s figures set out in the spreadsheet exhibited were accurate and consistent with the balance document signed by the complainant in January 2020. The complainant had acknowledged that she had signed the balance document in January 2020. The complainant had been paid all the balances due to her on 09 October 2020. Findings The complainant was a credible witness and I accept that she expected to be able to take all the leave accrued by her when employed by the respondent, or to be paid for any untaken leave when she left employment. It was not disputed that the respondent operated a rollover system for untaken annual leave from year to year. It is concerning that the complainant was not allocated her full 4 weeks leave in the 2019/2020 leave year. The Working Time Directive makes it clear that the right to annual leave is for health and safety reasons and has been characterised as a fundamental social right. In Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll DWT 0338 the Labour Court stated: “The obligation to provide annual leave is imposed for health and safety reasons and the right to leave has been characterised as a fundamental social right in European Law (see comments of Advocate General Tizzano in R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex-parte Broadcasting, Entertainment Cinematography and Theatre Union [2001] IRLR 559which were quoted with approval by Lavin J in the Royal Liver case). In Von Colson & Kamann v Land Nordrhein – Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891 the ECJ has made it clear that where such a right is infringed the judicial redress provided should not only compensate for economic loss sustained but must provide a real deterrent against future infractions.” Under section 20(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, it is for the employer to determine when annual leave is allocated, subject to certain conditions. With the consent of the employee leave may be allocated within the leave year or within the period of 6 months after the end of the leave year. I note that the 4 weeks leave for 2019/2020 was not allocated within the leave year or within the 6-month period after the end of the leave year. The respondent exhibited the balance sheet signed by the complainant in January 2020. The complainant under cross examination acknowledged she had signed this balance sheet. The figures shown on the balancing sheet are 327.65 hours carried over in respect of outstanding annual leave, 79.70 in respect of public holidays, and 54.60 in respect of time in lieu. The respondent produced a spreadsheet that showed a slightly higher balance of leave carried over at 328.25 hours and slightly lower public holiday hours at 79.42, the figure for time in lieu was the same at 54.60 hours. The slight variances balance out in the complainant’s favour by .32 of an hour. The main point of difference between the complainant’s screen shots and the respondent’s spreadsheet is the figure for leave accumulated between January and March 2020. The complainant’s screen shot shows a figure of 67.29 hours and the respondent’s spreadsheet shows 40.39 hours. However, the payment made to the complainant was more than the 4 weeks statutory leave she was entitled to for the leave year 2019/2020. The respondent exhibited the payslip, dated 09 October 2020, showing the amounts paid to the complainant. The payment in respect of annual leave was for 353.04 hours. The amount paid was €5,397.98 gross. That payment is equal to 45.26 days at a rate of €119.26 per day. That is more than two years statutory annual leave entitlement. The complainant was paid for 48.40 hours for public holidays. The amount paid was € 740.04 gross. That payment is equal to 6.2 days at a rate of €119.26 per day. Employees on lay-off are entitled to compensation for public holidays occurring in the first 13 weeks of lay-off. The complainant was put on lay-off on 01 April 2020. The complainant was due payment for the 5 public holidays that occurred in 2020 between January and 30 June. (01 January, 17 March, 13 April, 04 May and 01 June 2020). The complainant was paid for the 5 public holidays in 2020 and a carry over of 1.2 days. For the sake of completeness, I note the time in lieu payment was for 62.40 – this figure was composed of 54.60 carried over plus 7.80 hour worked between January and March 2020. The payments set out above are consistent with the complainant’s evidence that she did not take annual leave in 2019/2020 or 2020/2021 except for the days she was asked to take in March 2020. Based on the evidence presented I am satisfied that the complainant was paid for her statutory annual leave accrued in 2019/2020. However, there is one further issue raised and that is whether the complainant was entitled to accrue annual leave in the period from 01 June to 04 October 2020 when she was medically certified as unfit to work. In the complainant’s written submission, it is stated that she was medically certified on 01 June 2020 against her returning to work. The complainant asserts she submitted a medical certificate to the respondent asking to be placed on sick leave. The respondent asserts that the complainant was on lay-off as such her employment contract was suspended. Further, it did not receive medical certificates until 16 July 2020, that is after the complainant had been requested to return to work on reduced hours and pay. There is no statutory entitlement to sick pay. I am satisfied that the complainant was on temporary lay-off and was not entitled to any of the contractual benefits as her contract was suspended temporarily, therefore I find she did not accrue annual leave between April and October 2020. Having considered carefully the written and oral submissions, and the evidence presented I find that the complainant was paid for her statutory annual leave for the year 2019/2020 and she did not accrue annual leave in 2020/2021 as she was on temporary lay-off from 01 April to 04 October 2020. In addition, the respondent paid the complainant for a carryover balance of 25.26 days. I find the complainant was paid for all the 5 public holidays accrued in 2020 together with a carryover balance of 1.2 days. I find the complaint is not well founded as the complainant was paid for all her statutory annual leave and public holidays entitlements arising in the cognisable period together with payment for leave carried over. |
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.
CA-00040421 Complaint submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. I am satisfied that the complainant has shown reasonable cause as to why the complainant was not submitted within six months of the end of the statutory leave year 2019/2020. I extend the cognisable time to allow me to investigate the complaint concerning payment on termination of employment for annual leave for the leave year 2019/2020, ending on 31 March 20202, together with the leave year 2020/2021 ending on the date of termination, 04 October 2020. Having considered carefully the written and oral submissions, and the evidence presented I find that the complainant was paid for her statutory annual leave for the year 2019/2020. I find the complainant did not accrue annual leave in 2020/2021 as she was on temporary lay-off from 01 April to 04 October 2020. There is no statutory entitlement to sick pay. I am satisfied that the complainant was on temporary lay-off and was not entitled to any of the contractual benefits to sick pay because her contract was suspended temporarily, therefore I find she did not accrue annual leave between April and October 2020. In addition to the payment for her statutory annual leave for 2019/2020, the respondent paid the complainant for a carryover balance of 25.26 days. I find the complainant was paid for all the 5 public holidays accrued in 2020 together with a carryover balance of 1.2 days. I find the complaint is not well founded as the complainant was paid for all her statutory annual leave and public holiday entitlements arising in the cognisable period. |
Dated: 28th October 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Key Words:
Time limit Extension of time Reasonable cause Payment for annual leave Payment for public holidays |