Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ikechukwu Brown  Dike

Bidvest Noonan (ROI) Ltd (amended on consent at the hearing)

Representatives

  Self-represented

 IBEC

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-00057991-001

31/07/2023

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

CA-00057991-002

31/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00057991-003

31/07/2023

The Complainant swore an affirmation at the outset of the hearing.

The Respondent had two witnesses, Barry Kirwan, Retail Operations Manager, and Linda Connolly, Senior HR Advisor with the Respondent. Both witnesses swore an affirmation. The Respondent confirmed the correct name of the Respondent.

The Respondent sought clarification of the Complainant’s claims at the outset of hearing where the complaints did not match the narrative in the Complaint Form of 31 July 2023.

After inquiring, the Complainant identified three complaints:

1.       Annual Leave

2.       Payment for his last two weeks of employment

3.       Payment in Lieu of Notice

There was no objection to the addition of the second payment of wages complaint relating to his final two weeks of employment. Time was offered but not availed of to seek instructions on this new matter. On that basis ,I extended the complaint to include the additional complaint pursuant to my jurisdiction set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Commission Act 2015.

CA-00057991-001

The Complainant submitted that he was due two weeks wages as he worked two weeks in hand at the commencement of his employment.

CA-00057991-002

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he was owed 72 hours annual leave upon his termination of his employment which he was not paid for.

CA-00057991-003

It was the Complainant’s evidence that he had a good relationship with his employer and when he sought a transfer to the Dublin office but did not receive a response he ought to have received compensation for leaving his job.

CA-00057991-001

It was Mr Kirwan’s evidence that the Complainant was scheduled for work on a fortnightly basis from Friday to Thursday and paid on a Tuesday. At all times the Complainant was paid for his work.

CA-00057991-002

Ms Connolly outlined in her evidence how the employee portal works, and the allocation of annual leave is given at the beginning of the annual leave year based on the hours worked for the entire year. Where the Complainant resigned in April 2023 he only accrued annual leave for Jan to part of April 2023 which was paid in his final payslip of 05 May 2023 which equalled 48 hours.

A copy of the Complainant’s contract of employment, payslip and work schedule were presented.

CA-00057991-003

No direct evidence was given on the payment in lieu of notice complaint.

Despite receiving the same notification with detailed instructions as every party to an adjudication before the Workplace Relations Commission, the Complainant did not present any oral or documentary evidence whatsoever to support his complaint. Neither did he take the time to review the submissions and documentation presented in advance of the hearing by the Respondent. While it is appreciated the Complainant was a lay litigant and this has been taken into consideration, it is not simply enough for a party to tick boxes on the Complaint Form and expect the Respondent to answer vague complaints which are unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, while an Adjudicator may inquiry into the complaint, this does not extend to making a case for either party. 

CA-00057991-001

Having considered the contract of employment and payslips presented together with the accepted by the Complainant, in cross examination, that he got paid in arrears and there was no date identified for non-payment, I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057991-002

The Complainant in his own evidence stated he did not take annual leave during his term of employment with the Respondent except for the four weeks leave he took before resigning. He than offered contradictory evidence that he would request annual leave days when he was scheduled for 3 days a week to make up a full working week. He also accepted he was paid for 48 hours annual leave in his last payslip in May 2023.

Consequently, I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057991-003

It is simply not the case where an employee decides to resign, which he said he did two weeks after he sought a transfer to work in Dublin following his text message to his manager, dated 17 April 2023. While it is appreciated that there was no evidence that anyone from the Respondent returned his request of 17 April 2023 for a transfer, ultimately, it was the Complainant’s evidence that he sought alternative employment when there was no response. In the context of a minimum notice complaint, I find the Complainant was not entitled to such notice pursuant to Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. Consequently, I find the Act was not contravened.

CA-00057991-001

I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057991-002

I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057991-003

I find the Act was not contravened.

Payment of wages – Organisation of Working Time – Minimum Notice