ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044157
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sofija Krascuka | Avia Capital Leasing Limited |
Representatives | Terry Gorry Terry Gorry & Co Solicitors | Mr Stanislav Dobshevich |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00055203-001 | 23/09/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00055203-002 | 27/09/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021, the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 30 November 2023, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 1 September 2015 as a Junior Finance Manager. She worked an average of 40 hours per week and was paid €2,750 gross per month. The Complainant’s employment ended on 26 April 2022. The Respondent is a Russian aircraft leasing company. |
CA-00055203-001 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant provided a written submission. The Complainant submits that she was not paid the appropriate payment in lieu of her noticeentitlements (four weeks). |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided a written submission. The Respondent accepted that matters happened over a short period of time. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find the Complainant was not given notice nor was she paid in lieu of notice. As per her service she is statutorily entitled to four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complaint is well founded and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant four weeks’ pay i.e, €2,750, in lieu of notice. |
CA-00055203-002 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that the Respondent failed to pay her the required holiday entitlements or payments in lieu. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent put forward that according to their records the Complainant was due five days annual leave at the time of the termination of her employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find the Complainant did not receive her entitlements or payment in lieu of same.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complaint is well founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant €810.00. |
Dated: 15-04-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Notice entitlements, annual leave entitlements. |