Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daniele Vito  Antonetti

Ascot Catering Limited Ciao Bella Roma

Representatives

 Marius Marosan

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00039930-001

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039930-002

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039930-003

19/09/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00039930-004

19/09/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00039930-005

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039930-006

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039930-007

19/09/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00039930-008

19/09/2020

This case was one of six initially submitted by former employees of Ascot Catering trading as Ciao Bella Roma restaurant. (One of the six eventually withdrew and did not proceed to hearing). All cases were heard in a single sitting. I have not repeated the complainant’s legal submissions in all of the decisions as they are more or less common to all, but they can be seen in ADJ 30663)

The restaurant closed on March 18th, 2020, at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, at which point the comp lost his job.

Mr. Antonetti worked as chef for 45 hours/week and was paid €100 for 7 hours of work.

Complaint under Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 to 2012.

Mr. Antonetti started working for the company on 17/11/2017 and he never received his terms and conditions of employment.

Complaints under Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

Sunday Premium

 Mr. Antonetti worked on every Sunday for seven hours and no Sunday Premium was paid by the company.  The rate calculate is normally agreed by the Labour Court (30%), and these are the figures: €780 for 6 months and €1560 for a year.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. Breaks Mr. Antonetti did not get a chance to take proper breaks, just like his colleagues.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997;  Annual leave.  Mr. Antonetti did not receive any payment for Annual Leave, but he was allowed to go on holidays three week each year. His entitlement for Annual Leave is €2694. The amount includes Sunday Premium.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - Public Holiday As he was never paid the Public Holiday entitlement, Mr. Antonetti is owed €900 for this breach.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991 Unpaid wages - Mr. Antonetti was not paid for the last two weeks of employment. He is owed €1347 in unpaid wages.

Dismissed without notice - Taking into consideration the length of service, Mr. Santoiemma was entitled to 4 weeks of notice, which was never paid. The total entitlement on notice period is €2694.

Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 - Unfair dismissal Mr. Antonetti also found a job very fast, so the maximum amount of compensation is 4 weeks’ pay.

Evidence of complainant.

The witness gave evidence on affirmation. The interpreter also affirmed.

In reviewing the submission above the complainant confirmed the facts as set out there. He confirmed that he at no stage received a statement in compliance with the Terms of Employment (Information Act.

Also, despite working every Sunday he never received any premium payment.

In relation to breaks he said he never got anything beyond a brief break lasting a couple of minutes.

He confirmed in evidence that he did not receive any payment in lieu of notice on the termination of his employment.

In relation to leave he neither got time off or additional payment for public holidays and while he got some time off in the nature of leave, he was not paid for this.

Finally, the witness stated that he got no wages for the final two weeks of his employment. Also, he stated in relation to his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act that he had no losses attributable to the termination and was seeking the payment of four weeks as provided by the Act.

He concluded by saying that at no stage did any member of the management speak to him about what was happening or offer any explanation.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

As noted above, this case was one of six initially submitted by former employees of Ascot Catering trading as Ciao Bella Roma restaurant. All cases were heard in a single sitting. I have not repeated the complainant’s legal submissions in all of the decisions as they are more or less common to all, but they can be seen in ADJ 30663.

The restaurant closed on March 18th, 2020, at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, as did many such businesses.

One of the complainants (ADJ 30663) gave evidence of calling to the restaurant when it re-opened in August of that year to enquire about wages etc that were due to him and his former colleagues.

He was, according to his evidence, and to put it mildly asked to leave and without any satisfactory indication of what would become of promises that had been made to honour outstanding payments, to say nothing of their status as employees and the prospects of returning to work.

For a number of procedural and logistical reasons (several of the complainants no longer lived in Ireland) there were four efforts made to convene the hearing of the complaints and the respondent was notified on each occasion.

However, there was no appearance by, or on behalf of the company at any stage, or no engagement with the WRC.

While the detail varies somewhat in relation to each of the complainants all have in common that their employment was terminated without notice (in both senses of the word), they worked in an environment in which their statutory rights to breaks, and to paid holidays and public holidays  were not respected and they were all denied payment of wages for the last two weeks of their employment.

I now turn to the detail of this particular complaint.

On the basis of credible evidence delivered on affirmation I make the following findings.

There were eight complaints, and the numbering below follows the order of the complaints in  the CA number 39930.

According to the WRC complaint form the complainant’s actual wages were €14.30 per hour for a forty-five hour week.  The complainant has expressed this differently in his written submission as €100 per day for a seven hour shift, which is a marginal difference, although this only results in a forty two hour week and a weekly wage of €643.50.

To this provision must be made for Sunday premium and I accept the complainant’s submission on this bringing the weekly wage on which the calculation will be based to €673.00.

My Decision follows.

1)     Complaint CA-00039330-1 under the Terms of Employment information Act is well founded and I award him two weeks wages in the amount €1347.00

2)     Complaint CA-00039330-2 reSunday Premium, is well-founded. I award him €780.

3)     CA-00039330-3 is well-founded.The breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act were extremely serious and there was a chronic, institutional failure to honour the entitlement to breaks. As a measure of the gravity of the breach of the Act I award the complainant €5,000 compensation.

4)     He was not paid notice on the conclusion of his employment and as he was entitled to four weeks of notice. CA-00039330-4 is well-founded.  The total entitlement on notice period is €2694.00.

5)     I uphold complaint CA-00039330-5; Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. The complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I award him €2694.00 being four weeks’ pay

6)     CA-00039330-6 is well-founded, in respect of his claim for Public Holiday and I award him €900 for the breach of the Act.

7)     In respect of the failure to honour his paid annual leave entitlement, complaint CA-00039330-7 is well-founded. I find his entitlement to be €2694 (including an element for Sunday premium).  

8)     Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant was not paid for the last two weeks of employment, and complaint CA-00039330-8 is well-founded.and I award him €1347 in unpaid wages

Closure of business, not payment of statutory entitlements.