ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048861
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daniele Davi | Ascend Legal Solutions Ltd |
Representatives | Self | Company Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00060028-001 | 15/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00060028-002 | 15/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00060028-003 | 15/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00060028-004 | 15/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The complainant was employed by the Respondent as CTO and Agile Transformation Lead. Employment commenced on 20th June 2022 and ended on 18th October 2023. At the time of termination of employment, the complainant’s gross monthly salary was €8841.66 (€5692.34 net monthly salary). This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15th November 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complaint as submitted by the Complainant is in four parts, these are as follows: CA – 00060028 – 001. Submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The Complainant contends that he received notification that his employment would cease on that date, no notice period was provided by the Respondent. It is the Complainant’s contention that contractually he was entitled to two months’ notice or payment in lieu of this notice period. CA – 00060028 – 002. Submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant contends that he should have been paid for annual leave accrued and not taken as of the date of termination, this, in the Complainant’s opinion amounts to 12 days. CA – 00060028 – 003. Submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant contends that he should have been paid two months’ salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment. CA – 00060028 – 004. Submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant contends that he received no payment for the period from 1st October to 18th October 2023. The Complainant has calculated this amount to be €5,224.62. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent fully accepts that no notice period was given to the Complainant. The Respondent company has neither any income or clients and any monies held by the Respondent was given to the Complainant as a gesture of goodwill. The Complainant was offered temporary employment with the parent company in South Africa and whilst the Respondent accepts that this was not the ideal solution it was the only solution that they could find. |
Findings and Conclusions:
It would appear that the Respondent company in Ireland became insolvent and did not have the financial means to meet its commitments to the Complainant. I note that at the time of writing this decision the Respondent company’s status is showing normal. CA – 00060028 – 001. Submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The Complainant was issued with a contract of employment that clearly shows that he was entitled to two months’ notice of termination of employment or payment in lieu of this notice. I now order the Respondent to pay the Complainant a gross sum of €17,683.32 representing payment in lieu of this notice, such sum should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision. CA – 00060028 – 002. Submitted under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. The Complainant, at the time of termination of employment, had untaken holiday leave that he was legally entitled to be paid for. The amount of annual leave claimed by the Complainant was 12 days, this amounts to a payment of €4,896.92. I now order the Respondent to pay the Complainant a gross sum of €4,896.92 representing payment in lieu of this annual leave, such sum should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision. CA – 00060028 – 003. Submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. On reading through this complaint, I find it is a duplication of complaint CA – 00060028 – 001. CA – 00060028 – 004. Submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Complainant contends that he received no payment for the period from 1st October to 18th October 2023. The Complainant has calculated this amount to be €5,224.62. I now order the Respondent to pay the Complainant a gross sum of €5,224.62 representing payment of wages for the period 1st to 18th October 2023.Such sum should be paid to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision. All monies due to the Complainant should be paid within 42 days from the date of this decision.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Please see above. |
Dated: 28th August 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991; Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997; Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973. |