CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 41 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
This Order corrects the original Decision ADJ-00041471 issued on 23/08/2023 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041471
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Iain Slater | PHI Consulting Engineering Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
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-00052621-001 | 06/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00052621-002 | 06/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00052621-003 | 06/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 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. The parties were afforded an opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given under oath or by affirmation.
Background:
A hearing of these complaints was scheduled for 7 June 2023 and both parties were informed by letter dated 18 May 2023. The respondent stated he was not available on that day and would not be attending the hearing. However, he did not request a postponement and the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The respondent did not attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: The complainant started working for the respondent on 7 January 2021. He submits that in June 2022 he was underpaid €243.46, in July he was underpaid €1,493.46 and received no pay in August €3,243.46. He was not paid 10 days holiday leave that he was due when his employment stopped in September 2022. Also, he was not paid an agreed bonus. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: The complainant submits that he was not given a contract for his role as Director of Architecture in the period of 15 – 16 months he carried out these duties. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: The complainant submits he left the respondent’s employment on 1 September 2022 because he was not being paid. He says this amounts to frustration of contract and he should have received a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and provided no written submission. As part of his evidence the complainant did provide an email from the respondent dated 1 September 2022 in which he stated: “I will now liquidate the company and commence sole trading. I have portioned out money equally thus far, to all staff and will continue to do so until everyone is paid up to date. You will therefore be added to the list of creditors, as is standard in this scenario. Unfortunately, I cannot say what will be left to pay you.” CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: The complainant provided copies of pay slips and bank statements which show that he was underpaid in June and July 2022 and received no payment for August 2022. I accept the evidence of the complainant and find that he is owed the full amount of his gross salary (€4,583.33 per month) for the months of June, July and August 2022, minus the amounts he was paid in June and July. I also find the complainant is entitled to four days holiday, €846.15. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: I accept the complainant’s uncontested evidence that he did not receive his terms and conditions of employment, as required by the legislation. I find the complaint is well founded and award of redress of four week’s pay, €4,230.77. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: The complainant started employment with the respondent on 7 January 2021 and says he left the respondent’s employment on 1 September 2022 because he was not being paid. He says this amounts to frustration of contract and he should have received a redundancy payment. The Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) (“the 1967 Act”) sets out the general right to redundancy payment. Section 7(1) provides: “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.” Section 7(5) of the 1967 Act provides: “In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) . . . .” The complainant was not employed for the requisite period of 104 weeks and therefore has no entitlement to a redundancy payment. I, therefore, find the claim is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant the full amount of his gross salary (€4,583.33 per month) for the months of June, July and August 2022 that he was not paid. I also award the complainant payment for four days holiday, €846.15. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and award of redress of four week’s pay, €4,230.77. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: For the reasons given above I find this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 23/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Redundancy – not employed for requisite period |
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041471
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Iain Slater | Phi Consulting Engineers t/a Kodu Architecture |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives |
|
|
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-00052621-001 | 06/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00052621-002 | 06/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00052621-003 | 06/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 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. The parties were afforded an opportunity to examine and cross-examine each other’s evidence. All evidence was given under oath or by affirmation.
Background:
A hearing of these complaints was scheduled for 7 June 2023 and both parties were informed by letter dated 18 May 2023. The respondent stated he was not available on that day and would not be attending the hearing. However, he did not request a postponement and the hearing proceeded as scheduled. The respondent did not attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: The complainant started working for the respondent on 7 January 2021. He submits that in June 2022 he was underpaid €243.46, in July he was underpaid €1,493.46 and received no pay in August €3,243.46. He was not paid 10 days holiday leave that he was due when his employment stopped in September 2022. Also, he was not paid an agreed bonus. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: The complainant submits that he was not given a contract for his role as Director of Architecture in the period of 15 – 16 months he carried out these duties. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: The complainant submits he left the respondent’s employment on 1 September 2022 because he was not being paid. He says this amounts to frustration of contract and he should have received a redundancy payment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and provided no written submission. As part of his evidence the complainant did provide an email from the respondent dated 1 September 2022 in which he stated: “I will now liquidate the company and commence sole trading. I have portioned out money equally thus far, to all staff and will continue to do so until everyone is paid up to date. You will therefore be added to the list of creditors, as is standard in this scenario. Unfortunately, I cannot say what will be left to pay you.” CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: The complainant provided copies of pay slips and bank statements which show that he was underpaid in June and July 2022 and received no payment for August 2022. I accept the evidence of the complainant and find that he is owed the full amount of his gross salary (€4,583.33 per month) for the months of June, July and August 2022, minus the amounts he was paid in June and July. I also find the complainant is entitled to four days holiday, €846.15. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: I accept the complainant’s uncontested evidence that he did not receive his terms and conditions of employment, as required by the legislation. I find the complaint is well founded and award of redress of four week’s pay, €4,230.77. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: The complainant started employment with the respondent on 7 January 2021 and says he left the respondent’s employment on 1 September 2022 because he was not being paid. He says this amounts to frustration of contract and he should have received a redundancy payment. The Redundancy Payments Act 1967 (as amended) (“the 1967 Act”) sets out the general right to redundancy payment. Section 7(1) provides: “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.” Section 7(5) of the 1967 Act provides: “In this section requisite period means a period of 104 weeks continuous employment (within the meaning of Schedule 3) . . . .” The complainant was not employed for the requisite period of 104 weeks and therefore has no entitlement to a redundancy payment. I, therefore, find the claim is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
CA-00052621-001 – Payment of Wages: For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant the full amount of his gross salary (€4,583.33 per month) for the months of June, July and August 2022 that he was not paid. I also award the complainant payment for four days holiday, €846.15. CA-00052561-002 – Terms and Conditions of Employment: For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and award of redress of four week’s pay, €4,230.77. CA-00052561-003 – Redundancy Payments: For the reasons given above I find this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 23/08/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Redundancy – not employed for requisite period |