Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kieff  Boss

Hendrick hotel

Representatives

  Self-Represented

IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00049042-001

25/02/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00049042-002

25/02/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2006

CA-00049042-003

25/02/2022

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

CA-00049042-004

25/02/2022

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

CA-00049042-005

25/02/2022

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

CA-00049042-006

25/02/2022

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

CA-00049042-007

25/02/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00049042-008

25/02/2022

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 22nd of May 2019 as a senior bar person.   The complainant has submitted the within claims under the following pieces of legislation Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, Section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990, Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2006 – Penalisation, Section 27 of the OWT- Penalisation, Section 27 of the OWT- Penalisation, Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed term) work 2003, Fixed Term Work & Part time Work and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977.   These claims were submitted on 25th of February 2022. 

The complainant has also submitted a further 2 claim forms on 21st of April 2022 one against the within respondent bearing the complaint reference ADJ-00039756 and another against a different respondent bearing the complaint reference ADJ-00039844.

The additional claim bearing the reference ADJ-00039756 against this respondent contains a claim under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and a claim under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977.   The claim under reference ADJ-00039844 also contains claims under Section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and a claim under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977 but names a different respondent. These claims were submitted on 21st of April 2022. 

All of the claims were scheduled for hearing at the same time and date and were heard together on 28/07/2023.

The within claim was submitted on the 25th of February 2022 and so the cognisable 6-month period in respect of this claim dates from 26th of August 2021.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00049042-001

25/02/2022

As outlined above the complainant submitted an additional claim of discrimination on 21st of April 2022 as well as a claim of Unfair dismissal under ref ADJ-00039756.    The cognisable period for that claim dates from 22nd of October 2021 to 21st of April 2022.

The cognisable period for the within claim dates from 26th of August 2021 to 25th of February 2022.

The complainant at the hearing relied on the same set of allegations in respect of both discrimination claims despite the difference in the cognisable 6-month time periods for both claims.   I note that the submission date of this claim permitted the complainant to adduce evidence dating from 26th of August 2021 however the complainants’ allegations related only to the time period from November 2021 which was covered by claim ref ADJ-00039756 submitted on 21 April 2022.

I am thus satisfied that this claim is a duplication of the discrimination claim advanced in ADJ-00039756 and that the within matters have been addressed in that decision (CA-00049793-002).  

I am thus satisfied that this claim is a duplication of the discrimination claim advanced in ADJ-00039756 and that the within matters have been addressed in that decision (CA-00049793-002).  

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent on grounds of race.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00049042-002

25/02/2022

This claim was withdrawn at the hearing.

This claim was withdrawn at the hearing, accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Employment Permits Act, 2006

CA-00049042-003

25/02/2022

The complainant at the hearing confirmed that he had no complaint under the Employment Permits Act accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. 

I declare this claim to be not well founded.

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

CA-00049042-004

25/02/2022

This claim relates to an allegation that the complainant was penalised or threatened with penalisation by his employer for exercising rights under the protection of employee’s act.

The complainant at the hearing did not provide any details in respect of this claim.  Accordingly, I declare this claim to be not well founded.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.

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

CA-00049042-005

25/02/2022

The complainant at the hearing did not provide any details in respect of this claim and stated that he had misunderstood the claim.  He added that his claim related to the respondent never being on his side and or in his favour.  No evidence was adduced in respect of an alleged breach under this section accordingly the claim fails.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.

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

CA-00049042-006

25/02/2022

The complainant stated that his final payment had been incorrect and that he had raised this with the respondent.   The complainant stated that the respondent at the time had disputed the payment issue but, in the end, admitted that the complainant had been right and paid him the amount due.  The complainant added that the respondent had apologised for the error and told him that he was right. 

The Respondent fails to understand how the Complainant was penalised or threatened with penalisation for invoking his rights under section 27 of the Organisation of Working time Act,1997

The respondent submits that the Complainant was entitled to 20 annual leave days and his entitlement to public holidays were in accordance with the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.  After the Complainant was terminated on the grounds of gross misconduct, he requested holiday pay for periods in 2022 when he was on lay off (as provided for in his terms and conditions of employment). Ms Drohan explained on the 25th of April 2022 via email that he did not accrue annual leave while on lay off as annual leave accrues based on time worked and he was entitled to accrue public holiday benefit for the first 13 weeks of lay off only.  The Respondent paid the Complainant any outstanding annual leave owed and public holiday benefit after he was terminated.

This claim relates to an allegation that the complainant was penalised or threatened with penalisation for invoking his rights under section 27 of the Organisation of Working time Act,1997.

The complainant advised the hearing that he had not received his notice payment after his dismissal.  The respondent stated that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct and so was not entitled to a notice payment.  The complainant has also submitted a separate claim in respect of his dismissal, and this is dealt with in a separate decision under ADJ ref ADJ-00039756.   

The complainant advised the hearing that his final wage payment had also been incorrect and that he had raised this with the respondent.   The complainant stated that the respondent at the time had disputed the payment issue but, in the end, admitted that the complainant had been right and paid him the amount due.  The complainant added that the respondent had apologised for the error and told him that he was right. 

No evidence was adduced of penalisation or threatened penalisation for invoking his rights under section 27 of the Organisation of Working time Act,1997, Accordingly, this claim fails.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.

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

CA-00049042-007

25/02/2022

This claim relates to an allegation that the complainant was penalised by the respondent for participating in proceedings.   The complainant at the hearing stated that the penalisation which occurred was that the respondent was never in his favour or on his side.   The complainant sought to assert that the within claim to the WRC was the protected act even though the claim was submitted after the alleged treatment.  The treatment complainant of occurred before the protected act and accordingly no nexus has been established between a protected act and penalisation.  No evidence was adduced in respect of any act or conduct which the complainant had engaged in which resulted in penalisation.    Accordingly, this claim fails.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003

CA-00049042-008

25/02/2022

The complainant was a permanent employee and was not covered by the Fixed term work provisions.   Accordingly, this claim fails.

I declare this claim to be not well founded.