Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Murean Gavril

Mercury Security & Facilities Management Ltd

Representatives

Represented himself

Copacetic Business Solutions

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-00057519-001

03/07/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00057519-002

03/07/2023

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a security guard.  He started working with them on September 19th 2022, on an hourly rate of €14.00.  He worked for 40 hours each week.  He was dismissed on March 29th 2023 because he refused to accept offers of assignments to work at several different locations.  He claims an entitlement to pay for hours not worked and pay in lieu of one week’s notice.

On July 30th 2023, the complainant submitted these complaints to the WRC.  On his complaint form, he indicated that he had not been paid for holidays; however, at the hearing, he said he had no complaint about this.  He said that his complaint is that he was not given hours to work.  In the documents he submitted at the hearing, the complainant said that, in the 26 weeks from September 19th 2022 and March 22nd 2023, he was contracted to work for 40 hours a week, which is a total of 1040 hours.  He said that he was paid for 747.5 hours.  He claims that he is owed pay for 292.5 hours.

The complainant’s second complaint is that he was not paid one week’s pay in lieu of notice of the termination of his employment.

Mr Loughlin provided a submission at the hearing, setting out the complainant’s history with the company from the date of his commencement on September 19th 2022.  From then, until he was dismissed on March 29th 2023, he worked on nine different sites.  The reason for the moves from location to location was due to the complainant not returning from his breaks or his refusal to work on a particular site due to the cold weather, the conduct of other staff or his absence due to illness.  At the hearing, the respondent’s office manager, Ms Murray, said that, when he was removed, or when he left a site, he was offered alternatives.  On March 23rd 2023, he was offered an assignment at Lidl in Rathmines, which he refused, claiming that the location was unsuitable.  He was not offered any further work after that day and his employment was terminated on March 29th.   

A letter submitted by the respondent shows that the complainant was dismissed on March 29th 2023 and that his dismissal was effective from March 22nd.  The reasons for his dismissal were:

1.       Not returning from breaks and leaving his place of work on a client’s site without permission;

2.       Poor attitude to management on sites;

3.       Not agreeing to work on alternative sites due to having to be out in the cold or the unsuitability of the location.

At the hearing, Ms Murray agreed that the complainant was contracted to work for 40 hours a week.  She said however, that he did not work for 40 hours during each of the 26 weeks that he was employed.  She said that he was absent due to illness from December 13th until the 22nd and again from December 23rd until the 27th.  He was absent again from December 28th until January 4th, when he was informed that there was no hours available for him.  He returned to work on January 11th at Lidl in Rathmines, but he left the site the next day, claiming that it was too cold.  He was assigned to a shop in Grafton Street on January 22nd.  He remained working at that location until March 22nd, when he left work early, due to illness.  The following day, he was offered work back at Lidl in Rathmines, which he refused.

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant was unavailable for work, or he left the sites where he was working on numerous occasions. Mr Loughlin said that the complainant was paid for all the hours he worked.

Mr Loughlin conceded that the complainant was not paid in lieu of notice and that he is owed one week’s pay.

CA-00057519-001:

Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Having considered the evidence, I find that the complainant’s claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act is without substance.  I also find that he was paid for the hours that he worked and that no outstanding wages are due to him.

CA-00057519-002:

Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

At the hearing, the respondent agreed that the complainant is entitled to one week’s pay in lieu of notice.

CA-00057519-001:

Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057519-002:

Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €560, equivalent to one week’s pay.  As this award is redress for breach of a statutory right, in accordance with s.192A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

Pay in lieu of notice