ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00034194
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Jevgenija Katkova | Sergejs Afanasjevs Raduga |
| Complainant | Respondent |
|
|
|
Representatives | Mr Mark Curran B.L., instructed by O’Reilly and Co Solicitors. | Did not attend |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00045055-001 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-002 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-003 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-004 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-005 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-006 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00045055-009 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00045055-010 | 06/07/2021 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00045055-011 | 06/07/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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.
I explained the changes arising from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021 to the parties who proceeded in the knowledge that hearings are to be conducted in public, decisions issuing from the WRC will disclose the parties’ identities and sworn evidence may be required.
I gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaint.
The respondent did not attend.
Oral evidence was presented by the complainant under affirmation.
The complainant was represented by Mr Mark Curran,B.L., instructed by O’Reilly and Co Solicitors.
Background:
The complainant has presented a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, six complaints under the Organization of Working Time Act, 1997, a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, and a complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant worked with the respondent as a shop assistant from about 9/4/2007 until her dismissal on 6/5/2021. She worked 77 hours a week. She was paid €300 gross per week. She submitted her complaint to the WRC on 6/7/2021. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00045055-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. This is a complaint of constructive dismissal based on repeated verbal abuse and exploitation by the respondent. He failed to pay her arrears of salary, pay her for leave and public holidays and engaged in degrading treatment of her. Evidence of the complainant given under affirmation. The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in 2007 as a shop assistant in his food store. She was involved in a personal relationship with him from 2007-2014 when it ended. She continued to work for the respondent until she resigned in 2021 due to the repeated abusive behaviour of the respondent. He frequently screamed at her. She regularly worked alone for 77 hours a week, from 9 in the morning until 8pm at night, because she was trying to assist the respondent who owed a lot of money to the bank. She received no paid annual leave. With a few exceptions, she received no breaks during her working day. The respondent failed to pay her salary on many occasions during the period May- November 2020. She also loaned him money over the years to the tune of €24,000 for the purchase of goods for the store; he did not return these monies to her. In September 2018 he threw a cash register at her. In November 2020 the respondent told the complainant to leave. The next morning, he pleaded with her to return, which she did. In December 2020, the respondent criticised her lack of sales; he threw items at her. When asked, she states that while most of the extreme verbal abuse occurred in 2014, it continued to a lesser extent thereafter. In January 2021 she asked for leave; he refused her request. She was unwell. She stated that she had decided that she did not wish to work in the respondent’s store any longer. She asked him to dismiss her. She went back to Lithuania on 8 January and did not return to Ireland after that. Her last salary was paid to her on 28/1/2021 in respect of the week ending on the 3 January. Her last day in work was the 3 January 2021. The complainant states that she worked remotely in Lithuania from 21 January - 28 January 2021, ordering stock and transferring money into the respondent’s bank account. At that point she stated that she hoped to return to Ireland. She sought legal advice for the first time in January 2021 and again at the end of April 2021. The complainant states that during the years 2014-21, the respondent was mostly in Latvia. He only lived in Ireland for one to two weeks a year. She sent a letter of resignation on 6 May 2021 to the respondent. This is the date of her dismissal. Mitigation. She tried, unsuccessfully, to get a job in Lithuania. She secured a pension of €368 a month in Lithuania as she had been previously employed there as a teacher. Legal Submission. The complainant relies on Cedarglade Limited v Tina Hliban, UDD 1843 which held that in order to succeed in a complaint of constructive dismissal, the employer must have conducted his affairs so unreasonably that the employee is permitted to resign. This is what happened in this instance. Furthermore, the requirement to use the grievance procedure set out in the latter decision and in Conway v Ulster Bank Limited, UDA 474/1981 is not applicable in this instance as there was no grievance procedure or contract in place, and the complainant had tried in discussions, to no avail, to resolve the issue of the respondent’s incessant degrading treatment of her. There was no one other than the respondent to whom she could appeal. She took all steps prior to her resignation. She has satisfied the test to succeed in a complaint of constructive dismissal. CA-00045055-002. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Contrary to section 12 of the Act of 1997, and other than occasionally, the complainant did not receive the statutory rest and intervals at work set out in the Act CA-00045055-003. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Contrary to section 15 of the Act the complainant states that she regularly worked from 9 am to 8pm over a period of seven days. This totalled, approximately, 77 hours a week. Over the reference period of 6/9/2020- 6/1/2021, she worked approximately 1300 hours, an amount way in excess of the statutory limit of an average of 48 hours per week. The complainant relies on Sword Risk Services Ltd v. Sheahan DWT1435 which allowed periods of time which preceded the 6-month referable period to be reckonable. CA-00045055-004.Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Contrary to section 13 of the Act of 1997 (as amended), the respondent failed to provide her with a weekly rest period of 24 consecutive hours. She worked seven days a week from 9 in the morning until 8pm at night. CA-00045055-005. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The complainant received no paid annual leave contrary to section 19 of the act of 1997 (as amended) for most of her years in the respondent’s employment. CA-00045055-006. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Contrary to section 21(1) of the Act of 1997 (as amended), the respondent failed to honour his obligations to give the complainant a day off on the day of the public holiday, a paid day off within a month of the day, an additional day of annual leave or an additional day’s pay as required by the statute. CA-00045055-009. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The complainant states that she worked almost always on Sundays and for no extra allowance, contrary to section 14 of the Act of 1997 (as amended). CA-00045055-010. Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Contrary to section 3 of the Ac t of 1994 (as amended), the respondent failed to provide the complainant with a contract of employment or statement of terms of her employment at any stage. CA-00045055-011. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant withdrew this complaint at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00045055-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-002. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-003. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-004.Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-005. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-006. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-009. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-010. Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. CA-00045055-011. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The respondent though informed of the date and time of the hearing did not attend. Neither did he proffer any reasons as to why he could not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00045055-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. Relevant Law. Constructive dismissal is defined in s 1. of the Unfair Dismissals Act, as “The termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee is or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee to terminate the contract without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”. The uncontested evidence is that the complainant terminated her contract of employment. Before I consider if a contravention of section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 occurred, I must consider the date of dismissal and the jurisdictional issue of compliance with the statutory time limits. Section 8 (2) of the Act of 1977, as amended, states “A claim for redress under this Act shall be initiated by giving a notice in writing (containing such particulars (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (17) of section 41 of the Act of 2015 to the Director Genera] — (a) within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the relevant dismissal, or (b) within such period not exceeding 12 months from the date of the relevant dismissal as the adjudication officer considers appropriate, in circumstances where the adjudication officer is satisfied that the giving of the notice within the period referred to in paragraph (a) was prevented due to reasonable cause,” Date of dismissal. Concerning the date of dismissal which the complainant maintains was the 6/5/2021, her evidence was contradictory and less than plausible. She states that her last weekly wage was in respect of the week ending the 3 January 2021 when she ceased working. She left for Lithuania on the 8 January 2021 and stated in evidence that she no longer wished to work for the respondent. The complainant then subsequently presented an argument that she worked remotely for the respondent’s business, a food store, and for no wages, for the period 21-28 January 2021, placing and paying for orders in circumstances where she stated that she had paid for goods out of her own monies for the respondent’s food store to the tune of €24000 on many previous occasions, and had not been recompensed for any of this outlay. The complainant maintains that the date of dismissal is the 6/5/2012, the date on which she submitted a letter of resignation. The complainant contradicted herself by stating that she thought she would return and believed herself to be still an employee until her letter of resignation to the employer on 6 May 2021. She gave contradictory dates about seeking legal advice; one date was in January and the second date was May 2021. Aside from the contradictory evidence about her plans to remain with the respondent in the context of a complaint of constructive dismissal brought about by an abhorrent pattern of behaviour on the part of the respondent, triggering her departure from employment on or before the 3/1/2021, it is beyond belief that an employee with the experience she had of an abusive employer, having left his employment, would then continue to work remotely from afar, for nothing, apart altogether from the fact that she worked for a food store. The case put to me for accepting that the date of dismissal was the 6/5/2021was the improbable explanation that she still considered herself an employee of the respondent’s food store though not residing in the country or working with the employer because she had not submitted a formal resignation. This is a complaint of constructive dismissal with the complainant leaving the employment because of the unremitting intolerable behaviour of the respondent. Why would an employee maintain her employment for a further six months in circumstances where her direct evidence stated that she did not intend to return to the position after January 2021. The complaint lodged her complaint with the WRC on date 6/7/2021. She ceased working the week ending the 3/1/2-21. I find that the date of dismissal is the 3/1/2021.The complaint should have been made by 2/7/2021. Instead, though in receipt of legal advice, the complaint was submitted in the 6/7/2021. The complaint has not been submitted in accordance with the requirements of section 8(2)(a) of the Act. No case has been made for an extension of time in accordance with section 8(2)(b) of the Act or indeed that an extension was even necessary. I find on the basis of the evidence that she terminated her employment on a date during the week ending the 3/1/2021. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. CA-00045055-002. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This is a complaint of a breach of section 12 of the Act of 1997 (as amended). The complainant maintains that she did not receive the prescribed statutory rest and intervals at work. Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act places a statutory obligation on employers to ensure that an employee is granted breaks as follows: “(1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her to have a break of at least 15 minutes. (2) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him or her a break of at least 30 minutes.” The complaint was submitted on 6/7/2021. The referable period is the 7/1/2021- 6/7/2021. I am confined to considering the contraventions which occurred during the period 7/1/2021- 6/7/2021. The limitation period set out in at section 41(6) 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 Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”. The referable period is 7/1/2021- 6/7/2021. I have found that the complainant’s employment ended no later than 3/1/2021.As the complainant did not work during the above period, she could not, therefore, have been deprived of these breaks. I do not find this complaint to be well founded. Section 41 (8) addresses the discretionary power of adjudicators to extend time. It states: “(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.” No case was made in relation to section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Act. Taking the later date of May 2021 when she stated she sought legal advice, it would still have enabled her to bring this complaint within time. This did not occur. As these complaints were submitted after the date of the contraventions, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. CA-00045055-003. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This complaint alleges a breach of section 15 of the Act in that she worked in excess of an average of 48 hours per week for the period 6/9/2020- 6/5/2021. Her estimation is that she worked 1300 hours during this period Section 15 of the Act states: - “1) An employer shall not permit an employee to work, in each period of 7 days, more than an average of 48 hours, that is to say an average of 48 hours calculated over a period (hereafter in this section referred to as a ‘‘reference period’’) that does not exceed— (a) 4 months, or (b) 6 months— (i) in the case of an employee employed in an activity referred to in paragraph 2, point 2.1. of Article 17 of the Council Directive, or (ii) where due to any matter referred to in section 5, it would not be practicable (if a reference period not exceeding 4 months were to apply in relation to the employee) for the employer to comply with this subsection, or (c) such length of time as, in the case of an employee employed in an activity mentioned in subsection (5), is specified in a collective agreement referred to in that subsection.” The limitation period is set out in at section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, already cited in respect of complaint CA-00045055-002. It requires the complainant to submit their complaint to the WRC within 6 months of the date of the contravention. The complaint was lodged on 6/7/2021. The complainant relies on Sword Risk Services Ltd v. Sheahan DWT1435 which allowed the reference period to include periods outside of the 6-month time limit. In Swords Risk Services the complaint was lodged in February 2013. The complainant left work in October 2012. The complaint was lodged within the statutory time limits. It was based on contraventions occurring within six months of the submission of the complaint to the to the Rights Commissioner. The Labour Court held that “The Act does not prohibit the Court from calculating the average working week over a period of six months provided the effect of that calculation crystalises into an infringement of section 15 of the Act within six months of the date on which the complaint was made by the Complainant to the Rights Commissioner”. This did not occur in the instant case. No case for an extension of time was made in relation to section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Act. As this complaint was not submitted within six months of the date of the contravention, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. CA-00045055-004. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This is a complaint of a contravention of section 13 of the Act in that the complainant was not provided with weekly rest periods. The complaint was lodged on the 6/7/2021. The referable period is 7/1/2020-6/7/2021. The complainant ceased working with the respondent on the 3/1/2021. I am confined to breaches that occurred within the referable period of 7/1/2021-6/7/2021 No contraventions occurred within the referable period as she was no longer working during that period. No case for an extension of time was made in relation to section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 Act. In accordance with section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. CA-00045055-005. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This is a complaint of a contravention of section 19 of the Act. The complainant states that she received no leave for the duration of her employment which ran from 9/4/2007 to 3/1/2021. Relevant Law. Section 23 Provides as follows. “(1) Where— (a) an employee ceases to be employed, and (b) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the current leave year or, in case the cesser of employment occurs during the first half of that year, in respect of that year, the previous leave year or both those years, remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave”. The complainant had left the employment. But the leave remained to be paid. The last salary payment was made to the complainant on the 28/1/2021, devoid of any holiday pay. On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I find that no paid leave was provided to the complainant for the statutory leave year 2020-2021 which runs from 1/4/2020 to 31/3/2021. The complainant’s entitlement to paid leave is set out in section 19 of the Act and is as follows: “(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):” The onus is on the respondent to retain and present records showing compliance. The respondent did not attend the hearing and so did not discharge the burden demonstrating compliance with the Act. On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I find that in accordance with section 19 of the Act the complainant is entitled to paid leave in respect 1/4/2020- 3/1/2021 when she left her employment. Her last pay cheque according to her uncontested evidence issued to her on the 28 /1/2021 in respect of the week ending the 3/1/2021.On the basis of her uncontested evidence, I find that she meets the threshold of 1365 hours worked during the leave year 1/4/2020- 3/1/2021 which entitles her to payment in respect of 4 weeks. The uncontested evidence given at the hearing was that her is that her weekly salary amounted to €300. I find this complaint to be well founded. In accordance with section 23(1)(a) of the Act “Where— (i) an employee ceases to be employed, and (ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave. I find that she is entitled to €1200 subject to all lawful deductions. In addition, and in accordance with section 27(3)(c) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay her twelve weeks’ salary which amounts to €3600 in compensation for this breach.
CA-00045055-006. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This is a complaint of a contravention of section 21 of the Act as amended. The complainant maintains that she was not paid for public holidays during the course of her employment. The complaint was lodged on 6/7/2021. The last contravention occurred on the 1/1/2021, the public holiday for which she was not paid while in employment. She left her employment on 3/1/2021. Her last salary payment was made on the 28/1/2021 in respect of the week ending the 3/1/2021 and was devoid of a public holiday payment. On the basis of the uncontested evidence,I find this complaint to be well founded. In accordance with section 27(3) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €900 which represents three weeks wages in respect of this contravention. CA-00045055-009. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. This is a complaint of a contravention of section 14(1) of the Act as amended in that the respondent failed to compensate the complainant for working on Sunday. Relevant law. Sunday work: supplemental provisions. 14.—(1) An employee who is required to work on a Sunday (and the fact of his or her having to work on that day has not otherwise been taken account of in the determination of his or her pay) shall be compensated by his or her employer for being required so to work by the following means, namely— (a) by the payment to the employee of an allowance of such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or (b) by otherwise increasing the employee’s rate of pay by such an amount as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or (c) by granting the employee such paid time off from work as is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or (d) by a combination of two or more of the means referred to in the preceding paragraphs. (2) Subsection (3) applies to an employee where the value or the minimum value of the compensation to be provided to him or her in respect of his or her being required to work on a Sunday is not specified by a collective agreement. The complaint was lodged on the 6/7/2021. The complainant in her own evidence stated that she ceased to work on the week ending the 3/1/202 which was a Sunday. She was paid weekly. She left Ireland on 8/12021. She states her last salary was paid to her on the 28/1/2021 and was devoid of any extra allowance for having worked on Sunday 3/1/2021. I find that the contravention of section 14 (1) is confined to Sunday 3/1/2021.The complainant did not work on any Sundays thereafter. On the basis of the uncontested evidence, I find the complaint to be well founded. In accordance with section 27(3) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €300 in respect of this contravention. CA-00045055-010. Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. This is a complaint of a contravention of section 3 of the Terms of employment Ac t 1994(as amended). The complainant never received any contract or statement of terms of her employment within six months of the commencement of her employment in 2007, or at any stage during the 14 years of her employment. The complaint was lodged on 6/7/2021. Her employment ended on 3/1/2021. The complaint was lodged outside of the statutory time limit of six months prescribed by section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and outside of the end of six months of the ending of the contract. I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. CA-00045055-011. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The complainant withdrew this complaint. |
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00045055-001. Complaint under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
CA-00045055-002. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
CA-00045055-003. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
CA-00045055-004.Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
CA-00045055-005. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I find this complaint to be well founded. I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €1200 subject to all lawful deductions. In addition, and in accordance with section 27(3)(c) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay her twelve weeks’ salary which amounts to €3600 in compensation for this breach.
CA-00045055-006. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I find this complaint to be well founded. In accordance with section 27(3) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €900 which represents three weeks wages in respect of this contravention.
CA-00045055-009. Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 I find the complaint to be well founded. In accordance with section 27(3) of the Act, I require the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €300 in respect of this contravention.
CA-00045055-010. Complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 I decide that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.
CA-00045055-011. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The complainant withdrew this complaint.
|
Dated: 1st November, 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maire Mulcahy
Key Words:
Constructive dismissal: date of dismissal: breaches of Organisation of Working Time Act,1997. |