CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997.
This Order corrects the original Decision Adj-00047171 issued on 19 April 2024 and amends the Respondent’s name to Barking Mad Pet Boutique Limited and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047171
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shauna Finnie | Black Vanilla Limited Barking Mad Pet Boutique |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| Mr Frank Drumm BL |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00058204-001 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00058204-002 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00058204-003 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00058204-004 | 02/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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.
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 parties.
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission by the Complainant, Ms Finnie, on 2 August 2023 alleging that her former employer, the Respondent, Barking Mad Pet Boutique Limited, contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act,1973, in relation to her. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 15 February 2024. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.
That being the case, and having allowed a 15-minute grace period, I proceeded to investigate the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 4 February 2022 as a sales assistant/supervisor. She worked 40 hours per week and her gross pay per week was €540. Her employment ended on 2 May 203.
|
CA-00058204-001 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that she started working with the Respondent on 4 February 2022 in the Respondent’s Blackrock, Co. Dublin, shop. She was issued with a contract of employment around this time. The shop sells animal products but not live animals. The Complainant stated that two employees worked in the shop. Her hours varied. A working day could be; 08.00 to 17.00 or 10.00 to 19.00 or 09.00 to 18.00. The roster for the week was only issued to staff on Friday for the following week. The roster did not detail lunch or breaks times, only start and finish times. The Complainant stated she did get breaks at the outset, but in July 2022 she moved to another shop where she worked on her own and therefore did not get breaks. The Complainant’s days of work varied, she did work some Saturdays and Sundays, more Saturdays than Sundays. In her first month in the new shop, she worked two Saturdays and two Sundays per month but as things progressed, she ended up doing more and more Saturdays and Sundays. The Complainant estimates she worked some 19 or 20 Sundays in 2022. In June 2022 the Complainant was promoted. She met with two of the management team and they told her that she was now a senior manager- although from the description of the role given to her, the Complainant said it sounded more like an area manager role. She was to cover three locations, three shops, with a total of nine or ten employees. She was rostered to work between the three shops (she did not create the rosters she was simply on the rosters). With this promotion the Complainant enjoyed a €2,000 per annum pay increase. She requested but did not receive a new job description on taking on this new role. The new role brought new responsibilities with it. The Complainant was now in charge of stock control, managing and training staff and delegating other tasks. At the beginning the management team praised her for work in the new role. The Complainant stated that in November 2022 she started to experience back pain and in February 2023, it got worse. She was referred to a consultant by her GP and it transpired that she required surgery and that it should take place without delay. The Complainant informed her employer about this and provided proof of same. Her employer responded by email asking her to re-schedule her operation as it did not suit their needs. The Complainant told them that she could not do this- she needed her operation urgently. The Complainant underwent surgery in April 2022 and was certified as unfit to work for a week, followed by another week. She was absent from work on sick leave for a total of two weeks, 17 April to 1 May 2023. The Complainant did not inform her employer about the second week of certification, but she did tell them she would be back at work on 1 May 2023. The Complainant noticed that she was not on the roster for the week following her absence. She emailed a manager asking why she had not been rostered. She was asked to meet with two of the management team on 4 May 2023. One of the management team was friendly but the second was hostile towards her. He asked the Complainant why she had been off, she told him she had been on sick, to which he replied, yes, absent. A discussion followed regarding the Complainant’s absence and the reason for it. Allegations were made against the Complainant regarding her relationships with customers. She was told she was not pulling her weight; she was not a team leader, and she was not meeting her targets. The Complainant got the impression the managers wanted her to walk out of the meeting, but she did not do this. She was asked if she had been looking for a job, she replied in the negative; they said she should start looking for a job and that they would take over the management duties. The Complainant stated that the duo re-iterated their advice to her that she should start looking for a job. The Complainant stated that she did not appear on the roster thereafter and she learned that another woman was hired around this time. The Complainant stated that the last time she received pay was for the week of 16 April 2023. She was paid her accrued holiday pay on 11 May 2023. The Complainant provided documents in support of her case. One such document is an email dated 9 May 2023, in which a manager states, “Unfortunately there are no hours at present.” On June 14 2023, the Complainant received an email from the Respondent which included a line as follows, “ We have not ceased you with the company and if we have a need for you to do hours, we will offer them to you.”
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered this matter carefully. Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that: - Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act; to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that: - Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from ... the redundancy of the employee... Section 6(7) provides that: - Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so — (a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and (b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act. On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find the Complainant was dismissed from her employment. For whatever reason it is clear the Respondent did not want the Complainant to continue in her role after she took sick leave in April 2023. It is telling that the Complainant was not rostered to work after she met with two managers on 4 May 2023. In order to decide on the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal I must consider (i) reasonableness of the employer (Respondent) in relation to the dismissal and (ii) the procedures utilised by the employer prior to the decision to dismiss the employee (Complainant) being made. Reasonableness: I find it was totally unreasonable for the employer to dismiss the employee in the circumstances outlined. Procedures: “I find the employer did not utilise any procedures whatsoever before dismissing the employee. I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant was out of work following her unfair dismissal for six weeks. She earns €2,000 less per annum in her new job than she did when she worked for the respondent. In the circumstances I believe an award of 10 weeks’ pay in just and equitable in the circumstances.
|
Decision:
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.
The Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I award her €5,400.
|
CA-00058204-002 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not her breaks as entitled under the Act. The Complainant gave evidence that on many occasions during her employment she did not get her breaks as she should have done. On some days she got no breaks at all. The Complainant provided copies of rosters which include the words, “no breaks” in them. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant submits that she did not receive her statutory breaks pursuant to Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, as amended, on a number of occasions during her employment with the Respondent. I have considered this matter carefully. Section 12 of the Act provides: 12 – (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. (2) an employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1). Section 25 (1) of the Act requires an employer to retain records to show compliance with the Act. Although each case is determined on its own evidence, ultimately it is the employer who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act. In Tribune Printing & Publishing Group v GMPU, DWT046/047, the Labour Court set out the employer obligations to have proper procedures in place for employees to take appropriate breaks. I find the regime of break taking was not in line with the statutory requirements as per the 1997 Act. On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find she did not ger her breaks as she entitled. I find this complaint is well founded. I decide it is just and equitable to require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of € 1, 080.
|
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 €1,080. |
CA-00058204-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that she never received any written notification of changes to her contract of employment after she was promoted in June 2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Notification of changes. Section 5 of the Act requires: 5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than— [(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or] (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure. I find the Respondent breached the Act as alleged. |
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.
In accordance with my powers under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I declare that the Respondent has contravened section 5 of the Act and that the complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the amount of €540.00 being the equivalent of one weeks’ pay.
|
CA-00058204-004 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not get her notice entitlements. She was neither given notice nor paid in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered this matter carefully. From the evidence adduced I find the Complainant did not receive her notice entitlements as laid out in the 1977 Act. Under the Act the Complainant is entitled to one week’s notice or pay 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 €540.00. |
Dated: 19th April 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, notification of changes, breaks, notice |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047171
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shauna Finnie | Black Vanilla Limited Barking Mad Pet Boutique |
Representatives |
| Mr Frank Drumm BL |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00058204-001 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00058204-002 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00058204-003 | 02/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00058204-004 | 02/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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.
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 parties.
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission by the Complainant, Ms Finnie, on 2 August 2023 alleging that her former employer, the Respondent, Barking Mad Pet Boutique Limited, contravened the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act,1973, in relation to her. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 15 February 2024. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing. I am satisfied that the said Respondent was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held.
That being the case, and having allowed a 15-minute grace period, I proceeded to investigate the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 4 February 2022 as a sales assistant/supervisor. She worked 40 hours per week and her gross pay per week was €540. Her employment ended on 2 May 203.
|
CA-00058204-001 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. The Complainant stated that she started working with the Respondent on 4 February 2022 in the Respondent’s Blackrock, Co. Dublin, shop. She was issued with a contract of employment around this time. The shop sells animal products but not live animals. The Complainant stated that two employees worked in the shop. Her hours varied. A working day could be; 08.00 to 17.00 or 10.00 to 19.00 or 09.00 to 18.00. The roster for the week was only issued to staff on Friday for the following week. The roster did not detail lunch or breaks times, only start and finish times. The Complainant stated she did get breaks at the outset, but in July 2022 she moved to another shop where she worked on her own and therefore did not get breaks. The Complainant’s days of work varied, she did work some Saturdays and Sundays, more Saturdays than Sundays. In her first month in the new shop, she worked two Saturdays and two Sundays per month but as things progressed, she ended up doing more and more Saturdays and Sundays. The Complainant estimates she worked some 19 or 20 Sundays in 2022. In June 2022 the Complainant was promoted. She met with two of the management team and they told her that she was now a senior manager- although from the description of the role given to her, the Complainant said it sounded more like an area manager role. She was to cover three locations, three shops, with a total of nine or ten employees. She was rostered to work between the three shops (she did not create the rosters she was simply on the rosters). With this promotion the Complainant enjoyed a €2,000 per annum pay increase. She requested but did not receive a new job description on taking on this new role. The new role brought new responsibilities with it. The Complainant was now in charge of stock control, managing and training staff and delegating other tasks. At the beginning the management team praised her for work in the new role. The Complainant stated that in November 2022 she started to experience back pain and in February 2023, it got worse. She was referred to a consultant by her GP and it transpired that she required surgery and that it should take place without delay. The Complainant informed her employer about this and provided proof of same. Her employer responded by email asking her to re-schedule her operation as it did not suit their needs. The Complainant told them that she could not do this- she needed her operation urgently. The Complainant underwent surgery in April 2022 and was certified as unfit to work for a week, followed by another week. She was absent from work on sick leave for a total of two weeks, 17 April to 1 May 2023. The Complainant did not inform her employer about the second week of certification, but she did tell them she would be back at work on 1 May 2023. The Complainant noticed that she was not on the roster for the week following her absence. She emailed a manager asking why she had not been rostered. She was asked to meet with two of the management team on 4 May 2023. One of the management team was friendly but the second was hostile towards her. He asked the Complainant why she had been off, she told him she had been on sick, to which he replied, yes, absent. A discussion followed regarding the Complainant’s absence and the reason for it. Allegations were made against the Complainant regarding her relationships with customers. She was told she was not pulling her weight; she was not a team leader, and she was not meeting her targets. The Complainant got the impression the managers wanted her to walk out of the meeting, but she did not do this. She was asked if she had been looking for a job, she replied in the negative; they said she should start looking for a job and that they would take over the management duties. The Complainant stated that the duo re-iterated their advice to her that she should start looking for a job. The Complainant stated that she did not appear on the roster thereafter and she learned that another woman was hired around this time. The Complainant stated that the last time she received pay was for the week of 16 April 2023. She was paid her accrued holiday pay on 11 May 2023. The Complainant provided documents in support of her case. One such document is an email dated 9 May 2023, in which a manager states, “Unfortunately there are no hours at present.” On June 14 2023, the Complainant received an email from the Respondent which included a line as follows, “ We have not ceased you with the company and if we have a need for you to do hours, we will offer them to you.”
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered this matter carefully. Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides that: - Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act; to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(4)(c) of the 1977 Act provides that: - Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to be an unfair dismissal, if it results wholly or mainly from ... the redundancy of the employee... Section 6(7) provides that: - Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, in determining if a dismissal is an unfair dismissal, regard may be had, the adjudication officer or the Labour Court, as the case may be, considers it appropriate to do so — (a) to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and (b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply by the employer, in relation to the employee, with the procedure referred to in section 14(1) of this Act or with the provisions of any code of practice referred to in paragraph (d) (inserted by the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act, 1993) of section 7(2) of this Act. On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find the Complainant was dismissed from her employment. For whatever reason it is clear the Respondent did not want the Complainant to continue in her role after she took sick leave in April 2023. It is telling that the Complainant was not rostered to work after she met with two managers on 4 May 2023. In order to decide on the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal I must consider (i) reasonableness of the employer (Respondent) in relation to the dismissal and (ii) the procedures utilised by the employer prior to the decision to dismiss the employee (Complainant) being made. Reasonableness: I find it was totally unreasonable for the employer to dismiss the employee in the circumstances outlined. Procedures: “I find the employer did not utilise any procedures whatsoever before dismissing the employee. I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed. The Complainant was out of work following her unfair dismissal for six weeks. She earns €2,000 less per annum in her new job than she did when she worked for the respondent. In the circumstances I believe an award of 10 weeks’ pay in just and equitable in the circumstances.
|
Decision:
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.
The Complainant was unfairly dismissed, and I award her €5,400.
|
CA-00058204-002 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not her breaks as entitled under the Act. The Complainant gave evidence that on many occasions during her employment she did not get her breaks as she should have done. On some days she got no breaks at all. The Complainant provided copies of rosters which include the words, “no breaks” in them. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant submits that she did not receive her statutory breaks pursuant to Section 12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, as amended, on a number of occasions during her employment with the Respondent. I have considered this matter carefully. Section 12 of the Act provides: 12 – (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes. (2) an employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 6 hours without allowing him a break of at least 30 minutes; such a break may include the break referred to in subsection (1). Section 25 (1) of the Act requires an employer to retain records to show compliance with the Act. Although each case is determined on its own evidence, ultimately it is the employer who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act. In Tribune Printing & Publishing Group v GMPU, DWT046/047, the Labour Court set out the employer obligations to have proper procedures in place for employees to take appropriate breaks. I find the regime of break taking was not in line with the statutory requirements as per the 1997 Act. On the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, I find she did not ger her breaks as she entitled. I find this complaint is well founded. I decide it is just and equitable to require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of € 1, 080.
|
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 €1,080. |
CA-00058204-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence that she never received any written notification of changes to her contract of employment after she was promoted in June 2022. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Notification of changes. Section 5 of the Act requires: 5.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than— [(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or] (b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure. I find the Respondent breached the Act as alleged. |
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.
In accordance with my powers under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, I declare that the Respondent has contravened section 5 of the Act and that the complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the amount of €540.00 being the equivalent of one weeks’ pay.
|
CA-00058204-004 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submits that she did not get her notice entitlements. She was neither given notice nor paid in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have considered this matter carefully. From the evidence adduced I find the Complainant did not receive her notice entitlements as laid out in the 1977 Act. Under the Act the Complainant is entitled to one week’s notice or pay 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 €540.00. |
Dated: 19th April 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Unfair dismissal, notification of changes, breaks, notice |