Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Darius Radu  Peicu

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 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00039932-001

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-002

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-003

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-004

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-005

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-006

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-007

19/09/2020

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

CA-00039932-008

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, 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 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.

Mr. Peicu worked as a kitchen assistant, for 39 hours per week, and was paid €10.50 per hour.

He worked on every second Sunday  for five hours and no Sunday Premium was paid by the company. The calculation for Sunday Premium is made at a rate that is normally agreed by the Labour Court (30%) and these are the figures: €204.75 for 6 months and €409.5 for a year.

As was the position with all his co-workers, Mr. Peicu did not get a chance to take proper breaks.

He did not receive any payment for Annual Leave. His entitlement for Annual Leave is €1701. The amount includes Sunday Premium.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - Public Holiday As he was never paid the Public Holiday entitlement, Mr. Peicu is owed €803.25 for this breach.

There are two claims under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 ; for unpaid wages - Mr. Peicu was not paid for the last two weeks of employment. He is owed €819 in unpaid wages and secondly, he was dismissed without notice. Taking into consideration the length of service, Mr. Peicu was entitled to 2 weeks of notice, which were never paid. The total entitlement on notice period is €819.

The complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 is that the complainant was dismissed without any process, and he remains unemployed.

Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 - Weekly rest breaks Mr. Peicu worked 7 days per week on several occasions.

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

The complainant was initially employed as a Kitchen Porter but then moved into food preparation and working as a driver. In reviewing the written submission above the complainant confirmed the facts as set out there.

Also, despite working on Sunday two or three times per month he never received any premium payment, and nothing was ever shown on his payslip.

In relation to breaks he said he initially never got a brief break while working as a kitchen porter but later he did. 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. He estimates that he worked on five or six of the public holidays. He did not get any annual leave.

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 was unemployed for a year and had acute difficulty securing employment due to the Covid pandemic.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

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 39932.

According to the WRC complaint form the complainant’s actual wages were €10.50 per hour for a thirty-nine hour week.  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 €409.00

All eight complaints are well founded.

1)   In respect of Sunday Premium on the basis of those calculations, I award him €204.75

2)     For breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, in respect of his entitlements to daily rest periods and I award the complainant €2,500.

3)      Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant was not paid in lieu of notice, and I award him €819.00 in unpaid wages.

4)     Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 – I find that the termination of the complainant‘s employment was unfair, and I award him €7,500.00.

5)     In respect of his complaint for public holidays I award him €803.25.

6)     In respect of the failure to honour his paid annual leave entitlement, I find his entitlement to be €1701.00. (including an element for Sunday premium)

7)     The complainant was not paid for the last two weeks of his employment and is entitled to wages in the amount of €819. 

8)     For breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, in respect of his entitlements to weekly rest periods and I award the complainant €2,500.

CA-00039332-001 is well founded and I award the complainant €204.75.

CA-00039332-002 is well founded and I award the €2,500.

CA-00039332-003 is well founded and I award the €819.00 in unpaid wages.

I uphold complaint CA-00039332-004 and find that the termination of the complainant‘s employment was unfair, and I award him €7,500.00.

CA-00039332-005 is well founded and I award the complainant €803.25.

CA-00039332-006 is well founded and I award the €1701.00.

CA-00039332-007 is well founded and I award the complainant wages in the amount of €819. 

CA-00039332-008 is well founded and I award the €2,500.

Unfair Dismissal, payment of wages