ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00044444
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mannix Lacey | Cim |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00054956-001 | 09/02/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/02/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as an apprentice engineer from 5th September 2022 until 16th January 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant notified his Supervisor he intended to resign on 16th January 2023. Before he had a chance to send in a letter of resignation, he received confirmation that his resignation was accepted. The Complainant intended to work out his four week’s notice, but his employee profile was deleted immediately. He was upset and felt pushed out of the company. He was not paid his four week’s notice pay. He returned all equipment back to the company in a timely manner. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denies a breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and says the Complainant was paid two weeks in arrears and two weeks in advance and was paid up to the end of January 2023. There was an oversight. The Supervisor thought the Complainant was only due one week’s statutory notice pay as he was on probation. However, the Complainant has a contract of employment which provides for four week’s notice. The Complainant was overpaid for two week’s pay. As there was no indication notice would be given by him, the company interpreted the termination of employment as immediate. The Complainant was overpaid by two weeks and the company sought return of the overpayment. However, they were agreeable to the overpayment being paid ex-gratia to the Complainant on the basis that he returned their equipment. However, there were difficulties obtaining the equipment and the Complainant was not co-operative. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I heard and considered the submissions, evidence of the parties and their witnesses. The Complainant is entitled to four week’s notice of termination of employment in his contract of employment. However, the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission is a statutory jurisdiction. The relevant legislation is the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 which provides at section 6 that an employer shall be entitled to not less than one week’s notice from an employee who has been in continuous employment for thirteen weeks or more of that employee’s intention to terminate his contract of employment. The Complainant handed in his notice on 15th January 2023. At that time, he was overpaid for two week’s pay. His employment ceased on 15th January 2023. The complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th December 2024.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
|