ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00050576
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrew Kelly | Koncafe Ltd Root |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00061964-001 | 04/03/2024 |
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-00061964-002 | 04/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00061964-004 | 04/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00061964-006 | 04/03/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00061964-009 | 04/03/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/06/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent for a period of 4 months.
He was dismissed in March 2024 after which he raised a number of statutory complaints. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Alex Lee, co-owner, attended on behalf of the Respondent and gave evidence under affirmation. Mr Kevin Humphries, Company Secretary, gave evidence under affirmation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant withdrew CA-00061964-002 as it was filed in error. CA-00061964-001 - Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 The Complainant did not receive a written statement outlining his key terms of employment as required by the act. This was accepted by the Respondent. CA-00061964-004 - Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 The Complainant did not receive any Sunday premium though he worked most Sundays. This was accepted by the Respondent. Though they pointed out he had received a competitive annual salary but accept no part of that was apportioned for specifically working Sundays. CA-00061964-006 - Payment of Wages Act, 1991 The Complainant alleges that he was underpaid €400 over a period of four weeks. The Respondent believes they had paid him but in arrears. However, they weren’t clear that this was the case or whether the arrears concerned a different time period. In the circumstances I prefer the evidence of the Complainant. CA-00061964-009 - Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 The Complainant was not paid any notice when he was terminated. This was not disputed by the Respondent. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00061964-001 The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €2000 in compensation. CA-00061964-004 The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €500 in compensation. CA-00061964-006 The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €400. CA-00061964-009 The complaint is well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €863. |
Dated: 12/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|