ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037251
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Antonel Talpes | DPD Ireland Tipperary Depot 24 |
Representatives | Self represented | No representation |
Complaints:
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-00048207-001 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00048207-002 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048207-003 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00048207-004 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012 | CA-00048207-005 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00048207-008 | 17/01/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00048207-009 | 17/01/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 worked for the Respondent as a Driver from 27 November 2021 to 12 January 2022. He submitted a number of complaints regarding wages, terms of employment and equality. The Complainant is a Romanian National and interpretation services were provided during the hearing.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00048207-001 & CA-00048207-002 – Payment of Wages Act 1991
The Complainant contended that he was owed wages and holiday pay. He stated that there was a meeting with the Employer in or around May 2022 and this matter was resolved and payment given.
CA-00048207-003 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The complaint is that he did not receive written terms of employment. This was also addressed at the meeting in May. He did not sign a contract.
CA-00048207-004 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The complaint is that the Respondent changed his hours and rates in that he was promised pay per day and then that changed to pay per hour. He was paid €528.76 for 5 days.
CA-00048207-005 - Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012.
The complaint under this is that the Respondent was not keeping records in accordance with the Regulations.
CA-00048207-008 – Employment Equality Act 1998
The complaint is that the Complainant did not receive equal pay and that the Employer called him a ‘stupid Romanian’.
CA-00048207-009 – Minimum Notice & Terms of employment Act 1973
The Complainant seeks minimum notice payment.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing.
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00048207-001 & CA-00048207-002 – Payment of Wages Act 1991
The Complainant contended that he was owed wages and holiday pay. He stated that there was a meeting with the Employer in or around May 2022 and this matter was resolved and payment given.
I find the complaint to be not well founded.
CA-00048207-003 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The complaint is that he did not receive written terms of employment. I note the Complainant’s evidence that his was also addressed at the meeting in May.
No evidence in support of this was presented. I find the complaint to be not well founded.
CA-00048207-004 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The complaint is that the Respondent changed his hours and rates in that he was promised pay per day and then that changed to pay per hour. He was paid €528.76 for 5 days.
No evidence in support of this was presented. I find the complaint to be not well founded.
CA-00048207-005 - Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012.
The complaint under this is that the Respondent was not keeping records in accordance with the Regulations.
No evidence in support of this was presented. I find the complaint to be not well founded.
CA-00048207-008 – Employment Equality Act 1998
The complaint is that the Complainant did not receive equal pay and that the Employer called him a ‘stupid Romanian’.
Where an employee contends that they have been discriminated against or treated less favourably that another, the responsibility in the first instance lies with the employee to set out the facts which lead to a presumption of discrimination. It is not sufficient to believe discrimination occurred. There must be some facts and comparisons established.
Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 sets out the burden of proof as follows:
“(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.”
In this case, no evidence was presented to establish the facts relied upon by the Complainant. I find the complaint to be not well founded.
CA-00048207-009 – Minimum Notice & Terms of employment Act 1973
The Act provides for minimum notice for employees with 13 weeks service and over.
In this case as the Complainant had less than 13 weeks service, he is not entitled to the provisions of the Act. I find his complaints to be not well founded.
Decision:
For the reasons stated, I have decided that the complaints are not well founded.
Dated: 28th June 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
|