ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051947
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Martyna Szalaty | Izabella Bielinska T/A Piece of Cake |
Representatives | Self | No attendance |
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-00063737-001 | 27/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint 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 complaint.
The Respondent was notified of the complaint and the hearing by the WRC by way of letters issued to the trading address provided. Prior to the hearing, a member of the WRC staff contacted the Respondent at the telephone number provided on the complaint form. He spoke to the Respondent and confirmed she had received notice of the hearing. The WRC issued the link or the remote hearing. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. As I was satisfied she was aware of the complaint and the arrangements for the hearing. I proceeded to take the sworn evidence of the Complainant.
The name of the Respondent on the complaint form was simply Piece of Cake. Concerned that this might not be the full trading name of the Respondent I asked the Complainant to provide a payslip or other document containing the name of the employer. The payslip submitted following the hearing contained the name Izabela Bielinska T/A Piece of Cake and this is the name now used for the purposes of the Decision.
Background:
This complaint is concerned with the balance of holiday pay due to the Complainant on the termination of her employment when the business closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a barista café worker on 12.11.2021. On 01.07.23 the Complainant went on maternity leave. She was due to return to work on 29.01.24. However, when she spoke to the Respondent about her return, she was informed the business was closed and had ceased trading. The Respondent issued a final payslip containing the calculation of outstanding holiday pay dated effective 30.01.24. The total amount due was €827. The parties agreed that an amount of €350 would be deducted for payment for a wedding cake at €350. On this basis the Complainant is seeking payment of the balance of €477.75 gross in holiday pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend to provide evidence. However, as the calculations are based on the final payslip provided to the Complainant it is reasonable to conclude that the complaint is not disputed. The Respondent has ceased trading. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The evidence provided at the hearing leads to the conclusion that the Complainant has established a well-founded complaint in relation to holiday pay due to her on the termination of her employment. The Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that any decision be in nett amounts. Examination of the gross and net amounts of her pay suggest that the deductions from her weekly pay were of the order of €2.50 per week. As the amount due is less than two weeks wages, I am reducing the amount due by €3 to give the nett amount due to the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00063737 Payment of Wages Act 1991 The Complainant has established a well-founded complaint against the Respondent in respect of unpaid holiday pay on termination of her employment. Izabella Bielinska is to pay Martyna Szalaty €474.75 nett in unpaid holiday pay. |
Dated: 07th August 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
|