Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tiernán Ó Ruairc

O'Hares Maxol

Representatives

  Appeared In Person

 No Appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

Act

Complaint 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-00062183-002

13/03/2024

On 13 March 2024, the Worker a Sales Assistant in a Service Station submitted a complaint to the WRC that he had not received his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of employment or payment in lieu.

On 2 April 2024, the Employer was notified of the claim and did not respond.

On 31 May 2024, both parties were invited to hearing on 27 June 2024 in Cork.

On 21 June 2024 I wrote to each party separately and sought an outline submission from each party on the details of the case and any documents the parties may wish to rely on.

The Employer did not appear at hearing or forward any reason for the nonappearance.

The Complainant is a college student who worked in a part time capacity during his first year in college. He worked a 10-hr week in a Service station and while he was provided with a contract of employment, he had not been furnished with a copy. He did, however present a fine company handbook at hearing.

The Complainant stated that he had received €127.00 per week and had enjoyed the job which spanned 21 November 2023 to the evening of his dismissal on 12 March 2024. He habitually worked 6-11pm, across two evenings.

The Complainant gave evidence under oath that his position was terminated without warning on 12 March 2024.

He had a strong disagreement with his former employer which culminated in his unexpected dismissal.

He is seeking payment for his notice period, so far denied to him.

The Complainant did not present documentary evidence of dismissal outside of a pay slip from Sirocco Foods ltd Tonsure ltd dated 15 March 2024. This contrasted with an earlier pay slip of 8 December 2023 from O’Hare Group

This was also the title on the Company Handbook.

In the absence of the Respondent at hearing, the complainant could not provide any further detail on just who the paymaster in his employment was and confirmed that he was taking the case against

O’ Hares, Maxol. 

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at hearing.

The Respondent did not respond to an invitation to hearing or to my request for a written outline in the case.

I have been requested to make a decision in this case. In reaching this decision, I have endeavoured to hear from both parties. However, the Complainant was the sole attendee at hearing.

I have found the nonappearance by the Respondent is to be disrespectful to a Statutory Tribunal.

Issues have arisen on the correct name of the Respondent. In the absence of the Respondence, I am unable to advance from the Respondent title at the head of page outside of a comment on the legal title contained in the two pay slips relied on by the complainant which were addressed during his sworn evidence at hearing.

My jurisdiction in this case arises from section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973

Minimum period of notice.

4.— (1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be—

(a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week,

In the face of the Complainants sworn and uncontested evidence and following a careful review of the last payslip dated, March 15, 2024, I find that the complainant was denied payment of his notice period of one week.

The claim is well founded.

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.

Section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 requires that I make a decision in accordance with Section 4 of that Act.

Decision of adjudication officer under section 41 of Workplace Relations Act 2015

12. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 4(2) or 5 may, where the adjudication officer finds that that section was contravened by the employer in relation to the employee who presented the complaint, include a direction that the employer concerned pay to the employee compensation for any loss sustained by the employee by reason of the contravention.

I have found the claim well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €127.00 for his loss sustained by reason of the contravention of Section 4 of the Act.

Minimum Notice on Dismissal