Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Grzegorz  Podulka

Swift Wash Centre Ltd (amended on consent)

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

North Munster Citizens Information Service CLG

 Peter Collins, Director

Act

Complaint/Dispute 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-00056282-001

25/04/2023

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

CA-00056282-002

25/04/2023

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

CA-00056282-003

25/04/2023

The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation and with the assistance of an interpreter who also swore an affirmation.

Mr Peter Collins, Director of the Respondent gave evidence on affirmation.

At the outset of the hearing the Complaint Form of 25 April 2023 was shared on screen to the parties who confirmed the details with the exception of the termination date of 31 October 2022 and the name of the Respondent. The Respondent stated the business ceased trading on 31 October 2022.

The parties agreed the Complainant worked 39 hours per week and earned a gross sum of €1,764 per week.

CA-00056282-001

The Complainant gave evidence that he was not paid his four weeks’ notice.

CA-00056282-002

The Complainant gave evidence that he was not paid his outstanding annual leave.

CA-00056282-003

The Complainant gave evidence that he was not paid for the October 2022 public holiday.

Mr Collins advised the Company was no longer trading due to insolvency. He confirmed the correct name of the Respondent at the outset of the hearing.

It was his evidence that he personally assisted the Complainant in every way possible to claim his redundancy payment by completing the relevant RP50 form.

CA-00056282-001

It was Mr Collins’ evidence the Company could not afford to pay the minimum notice to the Complainant.

CA-00056282-002

It was Mr Collin’s evidence the Company could not afford to pay the minimum notice to the Complainant.

CA-00056282-003

It was Mr Collin’s evidence the Company closed on 29 October 2022 and did not open after this. Asked about the PR50 Form which he signed; the Complainant’s termination date was 31 October 2022.

CA-00056282-001

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 provides:-

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—

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,”

Based on the undisputed evidence I find the Act was contravened by the Respondent and the Complainant was entitled to four weeks’ notice.

CA-00056282-002

Section 19 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides for the entitlement to annual leave.  I find the Complainant was entitled to 6.66 days annual leave which was accepted by the Respondent.

Consequently, I find the complaint is well founded.

Section 27 (3) provides for redress:

“A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.”

CA-00056282-003

Section 23 (2)of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides:

(2) Where—

(a) an employee ceases to be employed during the week ending on the day before a public holiday, and

(b) the employee has worked for his or her employer during the 4 weeks preceding that week,

the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of his or her entitlements under section 21 in respect of the said public holiday, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to an additional day’s pay calculated at the appropriate daily rate.”

It is accepted that the RP50 Form was clearly signed with a termination date of 31 October 2022.

The Employee was on sick leave from 2 October 2022 but remained in employment until 31 October 2022 as per the RP50. The period the Complainant was on sick leave is protected under Section 21 of the Act.

Consequently, the Complainant’s complaint is well founded.

CA-00056282-001

I find the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 was contravened by the Respondent.

I award the Complainant compensation in the sum of €1,628.30

CA-00056282-002

The complaint is well founded.

Having what is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances in the circumstances of this case, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €542.22.

CA-00056282-003

The complaint is well founded.

Having what is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances in the circumstances of this case, I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €81.42 being one day’s wages.

Organisation of Working Time Act – Minimum Notice