ADJ-00034819

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Danuta  Czesnikowska

Elis Textile Services Ltd.

Representatives

Marcella Lee ,South Munster Citizens Information

James Cleary, IBEC Executive

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00045856-001

27/08/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00045856-002

27/08/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00045856-003

27/08/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00045856-004

27/08/2021

On 27 August 2021 the Complainants Representative body submitted 4 complaints to the WRC on behalf of the Complainant.

1 The Complainant had not received a Redundancy Payment

2 The Complainant had not received a statement in writing of her terms of employment

3 The Complainant had not received her full annual leave in 2020.

4 the Complainant did not receive her Public Holiday entitlements

On September 8, 2021, the WRC requested the Complainant clarify the date her employment ended.

On 17 September 2021, the Representative body clarified that the exact date would be a matter of evidence as the complainant was still formally employed by the Respondent.

The Respondent was notified of the claims on 29 September 2021.

The case came to hearing on July 11, 2022.

During the hearing, I established that the Respondent seemed certain that the Millfield plant was on the cusp of re-opening in August 2022. Both parties agreed to a 4-week adjournment of the hearing for the purposes of an exploration of the viability of a return to work for the complainant.

 Both Parties agreed to respond to me at the WRC on or before August 9, 2022. 

On August 5, 2022, and within the four-week period, the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant had resumed work on 18 July 2022. This was undisputed by the Complainant side in the case. 

On 15 August,2022, I wrote to the Complainant Representative and requested comments on the Respondent comprehensive update of progress in the case before August 27, 2022. I explained that after that date, I would commence the deliberative process to inform my decision in the case.

I did not receive any further comment or update from the complainant’s representative from day of hearing until completion of this decision.

 I thought it best to bring the case to completion by means of a written decision, based on the hearing and the undisputed supplementary submissions in the case.

A duplicate claim ADJ 34660 against a separately named Respondent was withdrawn at hearing.

The Complainant representative outlined that she had commenced work as a general operative on 19 February 2008. The Complainant was subject to a number of changes in ownerships at the business prior to this date.

 She earned €393.30 for a 39-hour week, which consisted of a work pattern from 7am to 3pm and 7 am to 3.30pm shifts.

The Complainant enjoyed her work across a variety of settings at the Millfield Plant.

The claims were summarised as:

1 The Complainant had not received a Redundancy Payment

2 The Complainant had not received a statement in writing of her terms of employment

3 The Complainant had not received her full annual leave in 2020. An overtime payment was outstanding.

4 the Complainant did not receive her Public Holiday entitlements

CA-00045856-001 Redundancy

The Complainant representative outlined that the complainant was seeking a statutory lump sum payment in redundancy in respect of a lay off which commenced on 23 November 2020.

During the lay off period, in May 2021, the complainant was approached along with other employees and requested to transfer on incentivised terms to another plant in Little Island.

The Complainant lives 4 minutes from her work base up November 2020.

The Complainant was apprehensive regarding any move as it meant that her terms and conditions would be affected. The Complainant refused the invitation to move, preferring to await the re-opening of her base location. She did not receive any clarity on when that re-opening date would be.

On 13 July 2021, the complainant applied for redundancy. The Respondent did not respond to the application at that time.

On October 7, 2021, the Respondent offered the complainant a work base at Glanmire. This was not a viable option for the complainant as it was inaccessible. The Complainant continued to seek a lump sum redundancy payment.

Evidence of the Complainant:

The Complainant gave her evidence with the support of a Polish Interpreter but was cautious in her account. She outlined the arduous nature of her work at Millfield, which involved a heavy workload and continuous standing.

She said that she was laid off during the covid 19 Pandemic and was offered a relocation to Little Island Plant. She was unable to manage this offer as she was unable to fund the travel component on top of a 5.30 am leaving home. She was also required to stay longer at the Plant.

She was deeply troubled to be out of work and had endeavoured to seek a re-opening date for Millfield on a number of occasions, but was unsuccessful

The Complainant expressed a firm desire to return to work but feared that “full trust “had gone. She was seeking a return to the same hours as previously on the same contract and when that didn’t materialise, she sought a redundancy payment.

During cross examination,

In response to the Respondent representative direct question of whether the complainant was prepared to return to work tomorrow morning? The complainant replied in the affirmative, providing that the same conditions prevailed.

When questioned on the Bus link provided by the Company to the Little Island site, the complainant accepted that she was offered “pick up “at Millfield but was uncertain on the return time. She said that she was not prepared to spend her whole day travelling in transit to and from work

The Complainant explained that she had sought redundancy in July 2021 as her requests for a certainty around the re-opening of Millfield were not realised. She had not received a report requested of a meeting with her Manager This was her first occurrence of “no work”.

She acknowledged that her contract of employment had not altered.

By way of clarification, the Complainant signalled that redundancy was to compensate her for not working and not knowing about work resumption. She confirmed that she had lived at the same location near Millfield for 9 years.

The Complainant acknowledged that she had been informed in May 2022 that Millfield was due to re-open in August 2022, and she was prepared to resume work.

The Complainant clarified that a number of Irish staff left the business and a further 10 were claiming redundancy through the Union. Some of the Millfield based staff had transferred to Little Island.

The Complainant was unaware that legislative developments had placed a stay on claims for redundancy while on temporary layoff. She had not received any documentation which signalled the conclusion of her employment. She subsisted on a reduced rate PUP followed by a Job seeker benefit of €208 per week.

The Complainant representative submitted that Section 7(2) (a) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 applied and that no suitable alternative had been offered to the complainant. they relied on Cosy Tots and Co ltd v Bernadette Conn [2021] RPD 219

In conclusion, the Representative argued that the outstanding issue of location was fundamental to the complainant and that a redundancy situation had sprung into being when the Respondent had not facilitated the complainants return to her work base of pre-November 2020. she was entitled to receive her redundancy payment.

The Complainant representative argued that the Respondent had failed to offer the complainant a suitable alternative work base and she contended that the complainant ought to be recognised s redundant. she had experienced a significant loss of income. She was unable to manage the cost or time associated with the offers to relocate her to alternative sites.

She was not curtailed by the stay placed on an employee claiming redundancy during the covid 19 pandemic. Instead, the complainant was redundant through lack of an offered of suitable employment.

I sought a copy of the complainant’s response to the company email of June 22, 2022. This was not forthcoming.

CA-0004586-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The Complainant representative outlined that the complainant had not been provided with a written statement of terms and conditions of employment.

CA-0004586-003 Annual Leave, 2020

The complainant submitted that she had not received annual leave during 2020.

The Complainant clarified in evidence that she was owed 70 hrs-100 hrs in unpaid overtime

CA-0004586-004 Public Holidays

The Complainant claimed three public holidays which fell during a period of sick leave 2019 and early 2020.

The Respondent is Irelands leading supplier of textile based rental services in Ireland. Ten processing plants exist in Ireland, employing more than 1100 employees.

The Respondent Representative confirmed that the Respondent rejected the claims advanced.

It was common case that the Complainant had re-joined the Company on 19 February 2008. The Respondent exhibited two contracts which originated in 2006 and 2007 respectively.

CA-00045856-001 Redundancy

The Complainant was based on the Millfield site. During a meeting of 40 staff in September 2020, the complainant was informed that the Millfield site was forced to close temporarily arising from the fall out of covid 19

On 30 September 2020, the Respondent issued a Staff Notice, which confirmed the temporary closure of Millfield for November 2020, alongside an invitation for relocation to Little Island. Logistical details were attached. Little Island Plant was operational throughout the Pandemic.

The Respondent also exhibited a letter dated 13 October 2020 to the complainant, which confirmed a temporary lay off to take effect from 12 November 2021, which occurred in February 2021.

The Respondent endeavoured to secure the complainant presence at Little Island on a short-term basis. The Complainant was asked to reply by 24 May 2021. Various inducements on travel and flexibility in contracts were addressed in the proposal.

The complainant informed the respondent that she had decided to decline all the proposed changes.

The parties engaged further, and the complainant came to work in Little Island on 24 May 2021 but sought to impose her Millfield work pattern on Little Island 7 am to 3.30pm rather than the site 7 am to 4 pm.

The Respondent subsequently, in a bid to encourage participation by the co hort on temporary lay off permitted the “Millfield hours “at the plant. They also incentivised travel

On 13 July 2021, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent and confirmed that she “was unable to accept the alternative offer of employment at Little Island “she applied for a redundancy payment

On September 6, 2021, the complainant was informed that Millfield was expected to open “early next year “

“You are a long standing, valued employee. the company wants you to return to Millfield in the New Year. Until then the Company have now offered you two suitable alternatives in either the Little Island plant or Glanmire plant …. On your existing terms and conditions.”

The Complainant responded and cited commuting difficulties as an impediment to working in either of the plants offered.

The Complainant did indicate her preparedness to return to work in the Millfield Plant in May 2022.

The Respondent Representative argued that at the time of the complainant s application for a redundancy payment on 13 July 2021, the Emergency Legislation had suspended an employee’s redundancy from lay off from 13 March 2020 and extended to 30 September 2021. The Complainant was legally precluded from claiming a redundancy payment.

The Respondent argued that Section 15 of the Redundancy Payments act obligates an employer to seek suitable alternative employment in a redundancy situation.

The Respondent has endeavoured to return the complainant to work during lay off, but this had not been acceptable to the complainant. the Plant known as Millfield was expected to open during August 2022 and the complainants’ job will be available.

The Respondent was keen for the complainant to resume work.

Evidence of Ms Kim Kelly, Human Resource Director

Ms Kelly confirmed that she had communicated with the Complainant dated 21 June 2022 and informed her in a delay in the reopening of Millfield.

She denied that a redundancy prevailed as the plant was awaiting installation of a machine and was due to re-open during the first week of August.

Cross examination, Ms Kelly accepted that this was not the first time that the complainant had been advised of a reopening of the Plant. she had been advised of the same story in May 2021.

Ms Kelly recalled that they had been in frequent contact during the temporary layoff period. The Complainant had availed of the PUP payment.

She confirmed that annual leave for 2020 had been paid.

Ms Kelly attested to the absence of a contract of employment commensurate with the complainants start date, but the same terms and conditions had prevailed throughout.

Ms Kelly confirmed that the complainant had not challenged her temporary layoff. The Company had not explained that the redundancy claim was barred in September 2021.

Ms Kelly confirmed that the Complainant had presented for a site visit in preparation for the re-opening. The complainant had not opened a grievance in the case.

Ms Kelly stated that the Company held an ongoing believe that there was work there for the complainant and was focussed on the reopening of Millfield in August 2022. The Company was keen to have the complainant back at work.

The Respondent agreed to furnish the respondent email dated 21 June 2022 to the Complainant referred to in Ms Kelly’s evidence.

This email confirmed a delay in the planned re-opening of the Millfield site. Once resumed, breaks would be as before, and annual leave could be addressed to the General Manager.

The Respondent subsequently informed the WRC and the complainant’s representatives simultaneously that the complainant had resumed work on a temporary basis on the 18 July 2022. He attached contemporaneous training and pay records.

These did not prompt a response from the complainant side.

CA-0004586-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

The Respondent disputed the claim. The Representative outlined that the complainant received two contracts of employment in 2006 and 2007. The Complainant worked on past the intended finish date of 16 November 2007. She resigned in January 2008 and was rehired in February 2008.

The Respondent acknowledged that the complainant did not have a statement of terms of employment specific to the latter-day period of employment. This, they contended did not adversely affect the employment.

The Respondent relied on Grant Engineering v Denis Delaney, TED 1728, Patrick Hall v Irish Water TE15/6 and Beech field Nursing Home ltd TED 1919.

The Respondent contended that any contravention could not be viewed as being “at the serious end of the spectrum”

CA-0004586-003 Annual Leave, 2020

The Respondent argued that these claims were statute barred as they referred to overtime 2017-2019.

As an alternative, the Respondent accepted that 70 hrs overtime would be returned either through time -in lieu or direct payment to the complainant. 

Outstanding annual leave was paid to all employees on the activation of temporary layoff. The Respondent exhibited pay slips dated July 1, 2022, which referenced holiday pay.

CA-0004586-004 Public Holidays

The Respondent argued that these claims were statute barred as they referred to 3 public holidays which fell between dates of 2019 - 2020.

I have been requested to make a decision in the four complaints lodged on 27 August 2021. In reaching my decision, I have had regard for the written and oral submissions of the Parties. I have also carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.

I requested a feedback report from both parties within 4 weeks of hearing. I was interested to find out whether the Respondents confirmed preparedness of Millfield would crystallise into a viable return to work for the complainant.

On 5 August 2022, the Respondent confirmed that the complainant had returned to work on July 18 and accompanied this narrative with pay slips, training records commensurate with that date. This report was copied to WRC and the Complainants Representative simultaneously.

On 15 August 2022, I wrote to the complainant Representative and sought that formal update before August 27, 2022, after which I would commence the deliberative process prior to completion of my decision in the case.

I was disappointed that the complainants Representative did not respond at any time.

I now move forward onto my findings in the case.

CA-00045856-001 Redundancy

The Complainant has sought a lump sum payment in redundancy. The Respondent has denied that the circumstances of redundancy were relevant in the case.

It is of note that the circumstances of this case correspond to the National Pandemic of Covid 19, where seismic changes occurred in the world at large.

In the circumstances of this case, the change materialised by way of a planned temporary lay of staff which occurred in February 2021. I accept the complainant submission that the Complainant did not have a live contract of employment at that time as the two earlier contracts with a separately named employer had elapsed by the time the complainant returned to work in February 2008.

I noted that these were the contracts relied on by the Respondent in the inter party correspondence with the complainant during lay off. This was a defined error.

Lay Off

Lay-off and short-time.

11.— (1) Where an employee’s employment ceases by reason of his employer’s being unable to provide the work for which the employee was employed to do, and—

(a) it is reasonable in the circumstances for that employer to believe that the cessation of employment will not be permanent, and

(b) the employer gives notice to that effect to the employee prior to the cessation,

that cessation of employment shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as lay-off.

Section 12 of the Act habitually empowered a complainant to trigger an application for redundancy within a time limited framework.

This was amended during Covid 19 and altered this option entirely until September 30, 2021

Operation of section 12 - emergency period

12A. (1) Section 12 shall not have effect during the emergency period in respect of an employee who has been laid off or kept on short-time due to the effects of measures required to be taken by his or her employer in order to comply with, or as a consequence of, Government policy to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of infection of Covid-19.

(2) Before the expiration of the emergency period, the Government may, at the request of the Minister made—

(a) after consultation with the Minister for Health,

(b) with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, and

(c) having had regard to the matters referred to in subsection (3),

by order specify a date that is later than the expiration date of the emergency period specified in the definition of ‘emergency period’ or the last order made under this subsection, as the case may be, and the emergency period shall be read as extending to, and including the date so specified.

(3) When making an order under subsection (2), the Government shall have regard to the following:

(a) the nature and potential impact of Covid-19 on individuals, society and the State.

(b) the capacity of the State to respond to the risk to public health posed by the spread of Covid-19.

(c) the policies and objectives of the Government to protect the health and welfare of members of the public.

(d) the need to ensure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of resources.

(e) the need to mitigate the economic effects of the spread of Covid-19.

(f) the need to ensure a continued attachment to the labour market for workers who have been temporarily laid off or put on short-time as a result of Covid-19.

(g) the need to protect the relationship between employee and employer during the emergency period.

(h) the need to mitigate the increased risk of insolvencies in the event of a substantial number of redundancies occurring over a short time period resulting in permanent job losses.

It of note in this case that the complainant submitted a RP77 on 13 July 2021. The Complainant then submitted her complaint, without recourse to the company grievance procedure some 6 weeks later on 27 August 2021.

I was interested to note on the file that the WRC had requested a clarification of the end date of employment for the purposes of the claim for redundancy. The Complainant confirmed, in response that the complainant was “still formally employed “on 17 September 2021.

It is my opinion, that this claim would have been well served to have been processed through the company grievance procedure. I am strengthened in this view when I went on to consider the Complainants representatives bid to secure top up earnings in December 2021. This document was anchored by the phrase, that the complainant was “happy to return to work “.

I also note that that the Respondent did not reference the amendment to section 12 of the Act prior to the submissions for hearing.

On listening carefully to the complainant, she had no idea that the right to claim redundancy from temporary layoff had been temporarily extinguished during the pandemic. I accept fully her distress at not having work, for the first time in her life. I also appreciate that she felt under pressure to consider return to work proposals to alternative sites. However, by December 2021, the Respondent position had been declared to the complainant, she was permitted to remain on temporary layoff until Millfield re-opened.

The Law on Redundancy is technical.

Section 7 of the Act outlines the circumstances where a lump sum payment of redundancy is payable.

Dismissal or termination of employment goes to the heart of a redundancy. Both parties were very clear with me that the employment had not ended. No documentation was furnished to allow me to conclude that the employment relationship had concluded. Instead, I am satisfied that temporary lay off prevailed from February 2021 to 18 July 2022 when the Complainant was reconciled to her parent site, Millfield.

General right to redundancy payment.

7.— (1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided—

(a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and

(b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years] ending on that date.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned] the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to—

(a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or

(b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or

(c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or

(d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or

(e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained,

I find that the Complainant cannot avail of the definition provided in section 9 of the Act.

Dismissal by employer.

9.— (1) For the purposes of this Part an employee shall, subject to this Part, be taken to be dismissed by his employer if but only if—

(a) the contract under which he is employed by the employer is terminated by the employer, whether by or without notice, or

(b) where, under the contract under which the employee is employed by the employer the employee is employed for a fixed term or for a specified purpose (being a purpose of such a kind that the duration of the contract was limited but was, at the time of its making, incapable of precise ascertainment), that term expires or that purpose ceases without being renewed under the same or similar contract, or]

(c) the employee terminates the contract under which he is employed by the employer in circumstances (not falling within subsection (5)) such that he is entitled so to terminate it by reason of the employer ‘s conduct.

Having considered the Respondent submission as requested post hearing, I am satisfied that the complainant returned to work voluntarily on July 18, 2022. following a period of extended lay off during the National Covid 19 Pandemic 2020 -2022.

Section 12 A of the Redundancy Payment Act, 1967, as amended estopped a claim for redundancy up to September 30, 2021.

I am satisfied from the Respondent evidence that a redundancy situation did not arise at the company during this period. I accept that the offers of a return to work in alternative sites were not viable for the complainant, but this could not trigger a claim for redundancy.

I cannot accept that the complainant can avail of any of the provisions of Section 7 or Section 9 of the Act.

She was not dismissed.

The claim Is not well founded and is defeated by an undisputed confirmation of the complainants return to work from Lay Off in July 2022.

The claim is not well founded.

CA-0004586-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

Both parties accept that the Complainant was not provided with a written statement of her terms of employment consistent with the terms of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant attributed this to a significant omission. The Respondent disputed this and argued that it had no visible practical impact.

For my part, a written statement of terms of employment as mandated in section 3 of the Act is to give live, purpose and meaning to an employment relationship. It serves as both a “comfort blanket “and a navigation tool in an employment setting

The Complainant is a permanent employee and ought to have been issued with her statutory entitlement of the provisions of section 3.

I noted that the earlier contracts had an informative clause on “lay off “and “grievance procedure “The omission to provide a written statement of terms of employment amounted to a continuous contravention of section 3 of the Act.

In accordance with my powers under section 7 of the Act, I find that the complaint was well founded.

CA-0004586-003 Annual Leave, 2020

I have engaged in some Inquiry in this case. I noted that the Respondent gave a commitment to pay annual leave outstanding on the activation of temporary layoff. As the parties are aware, annual leave is not meant to be paid on the conclusion of employment, outside cesser pay outlined in section 23 of the Act.

In this case, cesser pay does not apply as the employment remained live throughout the period February 2021 to July 2022, albeit under the umbrella of temporary layoff where, while service is viewed as continuous, it is not reckonable for annual leave.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 sets out my jurisdiction in this claim.

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 Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

This claim was received by the WRC on 27 August 2021.

I find that the claim is statute barred. The Complainant did not plead a reasonable cause extension in accordance with section 41(8)

However, the issue may be moot as the Respondent has confirmed payment of annual leave and in the absence of a response from the Complainants Representatives to these payslips, I am unable to take the matter further.

CA-0004586-004 Public Holidays

The Complainant has claimed three public holidays during sick leave for Christmas 2019 and New Year, 2020

The Respondent has argued that the claim is out of time.

Entitlement in respect of public holidays.

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

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 sets out my jurisdiction in this claim.

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 Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

This claim was received by the WRC on 27 August 2021.

I find that the claim is statute barred. The Complainant did not plead a reasonable cause extension in accordance with section 41(8)

The claim is not well founded.

CA-00045856-001 Redundancy

Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.

The claim for redundancy Is not well founded.

CA-0004586-002 Terms and Conditions of Employment

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.

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that I make a decision in accordance with section 3 of the Act.

I have found the claim well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €786.60(two weeks’ pay) in compensation in respect of the continuous contravention of the Act

CA-0004586-003 Annual Leave, 2020

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.

Section 27 of the Organisation of the Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to Section 19 of that Act.

This claim is out of time and not well founded.

I note that the Respondent has exhibited a subsequent record of payment for annual leave dated July 1, 2022, which was not disputed by the Complainant side.

I also note that the Respondent has given an assurance that 70 hrs of overtime, not a bone fide composite of the claim will be administered locally via time in lieu or payment.

CA-0004586-004 Public Holidays

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.

Section 27 of the Organisation of the Working Time Act, 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to Section 21 of that Act.

This claim is out of time and not well founded.

Claim for Redundancy, Annual Leave and Public Holiday