Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amber Murphy

Touch Of Beauty Skin and Laser Limited (In Liquidation)  

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Gerard Murphy, Gerard Murphy & Company Limited

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00053370-001

21/10/2022

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

CA-00053370-003

21/10/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00053370-004

21/10/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00053370-005

21/10/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00053370-006

21/10/2022

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

CA-00053370-007

21/10/2022

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 9th December 2021. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €440. At all relevant times the Complainant role was described as that of “Beautician”. The Complainant’s contract of employment terminated on 21st September 2022.

On 21st October 2022, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, she alleged various breaches of the impleaded Acts throughout her employment. By responding submission, the Respondent denied many of the complaints raised by the Complainant on a factual basis.

A hearing in relation to the matter was convened for, and finalised on, 21st October 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

In advance of the hearing the parties issued submissions regarding the complaints and the defenses raised in respect of the same. Prior to the hearing, the Respondent representative corresponded with the Commission, advising that he was the liquidator appointed to the Respondent in accordance with the Companies Acts. While the Complainant gave evidence in support of her complaints, no witness evidence was called by the Respondent. As part of the enquiries into the matter, the Adjudicator put the content of the Respondent’s earlier submissions to the Complainant whilst under oath.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 9th December 2021. The Complainant stated that she did not sign a contract of employment at the commencement of her employment.

Regarding the working time complaints, the Complainant alleged that she frequently worked on Sundays without any additional remuneration or compensation in respect of the same. The Complainant further alleged that she did not receive any compensation for working on public holidays. The Complainant alleged that she would frequently work in excess of 48 hours per week in contravention of the Act. The Complainant further submitted that she did not receive the correct annual leave entitlement on the termination of her employment.

Finally, the Complainant submitted that she did not receive any notice of the termination of her employment, and that she was not compensated in respect of the same.

Regarding the submission of the Respondent, the Complainant denied that she received sufficent payment in respect of her public holidays as alleged. She further denied that she was provided with a copy of the terms of employment exhibited by the Respondent and denied that she was provided with a week of notice of the termination of her employment.

By response, the liquidator appointed to the Respondent did not call any evidence to contradict the testimony of the Complainant. Nonetheless, he sought to rely on the factual elements of the submission as earlier referred by the Respondent.

CA-00053370-001 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

Regarding this complaint, the Complainant alleged that she did not receive compensation for working on Sundays. In circumstances whereby the Respondent conceded this allegation by way of submission, I find that the complaint is well-founded. 

CA-00053370-003 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

By submission, the Complainant stated that she was underpaid at a rate of 50 cents per hour in respect of her public holiday entitlement. In circumstances whereby an underpayment in respect of the same was conceded by the Respondent, I find that the complaint is well-founded. The complaint in relation to annual leave was not particularised by the Complainant and is not well-founded.

CA-00053370-004 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Regarding this complaint, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent did not retain a copy of her statement of terms of employment and did not provide a copy of the same when requested to do so. In circumstances whereby no evidence was called to contradict that of the Complainant, I find that this complaint is well-founded.

CA-00053370-005 Complaint under the Mobile Transport Regulations

On enquiry from the Adjudicator, the Complainant accepted that she was not involved in mobile transport activities. In such circumstances this complaint is deemed to be not well-founded. 

CA-00053370-006 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

In evidence, the Complainant stated that she did not receive notice or any payment in lieu of the same. In such circumstances whereby this allegation was not contradicted by opposing testimony, I find that the complaint is well-founded.

CA-00053370-007 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

In evidence, the Complainant submitted that she would frequently work in excess of the maximum weekly hours permitted by the Act. In this regard the Respondent accepted that the Complainant worked in excess of 48 hours per week on two occasions only.

In such disputes, it falls to the Respondent to provide the relevant working time records to contradict the evidence of the Complainant. In circumstances whereby no such records were put into evidence by the Respondent, I find that the complaint is well-founded.

CA-00053370-001 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €500.

CA-00053370-003 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €250 in respect of the underpayment of her public holiday entitlement.

CA-00053370-004 Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €1,320, or the equivalent of three weeks’ salary, in compensation.

CA-00053370-005 Complaint under the Mobile Transport Regulations

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

CA-00053370-006 Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €440 or the equivalent of one weeks’ salary in compensation.

CA-00053370-007 Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €500.

Liquidation, Evidence, Submission, Working Time