Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030612
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sanda Maties | Ascot Catering Limited Ciao Bella Roma |
Representatives | Marius Marosan |
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040740-001 | 02/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00040740-002 | 02/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00040740-003 | 02/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040740-004 | 02/11/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00040740-005 | 02/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or 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.
Background:
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).
The restaurant closed on March 18th, 2020, at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, as did many businesses which involved close contact. The complainant lost her job on that date. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Ms. Maties was employed as a bookkeeper. She worked part-time, doing 15 hours/week and she was paid €12 per hour. She claims as follows. Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - Public Holiday As she was never paid the Public Holiday entitlement, Ms. Maties is owed €324 for this breach.
Payment of Wages Act, 1991
Unpaid wages - Ms. Maties was not paid for the last two weeks of employment. She is owed €360 in unpaid wages. Dismissed without notice - Taking into consideration the length of service, Ms. Maties was entitled to four weeks of notice, which were never paid. The total entitlement on notice period is €720. Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977. As Ms. Maties was only working part time, she already had another job, so the maximum amount of compensation is four weeks’ pay.
The witness gave evidence on affirmation. The interpreter also affirmed.
In reviewing the submission above the complainant confirmed the facts as set out there. She stated that she worked only three days per week as a bookkeeper: Monday to Wednesday.
The witness was unsure about her public holidays entitlement and decided to withdraw this complaint. The witness stated that she got no wages for the final two weeks of her employment.
She confirmed in evidence that she did not receive any payment in lieu of notice on the termination of his employment.
Also, she 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. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
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).
The restaurant closed on March 18th, 2020, at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, as did many businesses which involved close contact.
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 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 five complaints.
CA-00040740-1 is well-founded. I award her €360 in respect of two weeks’ wages due to her.
She withdrew complaint CA-00040740-2 regarding annual leave and she also withdrew complaint CA-00040740-3 regarding public holidays. She was not paid notice on the conclusion of her employment and as she was entitled to two weeks of notice, CA-00040740-4 is well-founded. I award her €360 in respect of two weeks’ notice payment due to her. I uphold complaint CA-00040740-005 under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and I award the complainant €720.00 being four weeks’ pay as she secured employment soon after her dismissal. |
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-00040740-1 is well-founded. I award her €360 in respect of two weeks’ wages due to her.
She withdrew complaint CA-00040740-2 regarding annual leave.
She also withdrew complaint CA-00040740-3 regarding public holidays.
CA-00040740-4 is well-founded. I award her €360 in respect of two weeks’ notice payment due to her.
I uphold complaint CA-00040740-005 under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and I award the complainant €720.00 being four weeks’ pay. |
Dated: 13/10/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, Payment of wages. |