Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Thomas  White

Fenton Fires

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented  

No Appearance

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00063337-001

07/05/2024

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

CA-00063337-002

07/05/2024

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 28th November 2023. The Complainant was a full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly wage of €600. On 7th May 2024 the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent did not pay his statutory notice payment on the termination of his employment. No response was received from the Complainant’s former employer in relation to this allegation.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 9th September 2024. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

The Complainant issued an extensive submission in advance of the hearing. While this submission touched on many issues experienced by the Complainant during his employment, the Adjudicator confirmed that the present decision could relate to the redress provisions of the impleaded Acts only. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaints were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent summarily dismissed him on 30th April 2024. While the Complainant raised many issues regarding the conditions of his employment, he further submitted that the Respondent refused to allow him to work for his notice period, and did not compensate him in lieu of the same.  

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the hearing as scheduled. Having reviewed the file it is apparent that the Respondent was aware of the time, date and venue of the hearing. In circumstances whereby no application was made to adjourn the hearing in advance, and no explanation for the absence was received following the hearing, the matter proceeded in their absence.

Regarding the present case, the Complainant has raised numerous issues regarding the condition of his employment. Following an enquiry from the Adjudicator, the Complainant accepted that the present set of complaints related to the nom-payment of his statutory notice only. Regarding this matter, the evidence in clear and uncontested. In this regard it is apparent that the Complainant was summarily dismissed without process and without provision for notice or payment in lieu of the same.

In answer to a further question posed by the Adjudicator, the Complainant accepted that both complaints related to this payment and acknowledged that he would not be entitled to double recover in relation to the same.

CA-0006337-001 – Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act

I find in favour of the Complainant and deem the complaint to be well-founded. Regarding redress, I award the Complainant the sum of €600.00, or one-weeks’ remuneration, in compensation.

CA-0006337-002 – Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act

I find in favour of the Complainant and deem the complaint to be well-founded. Regarding redress, in circumstances whereby the Complainant has received the monetary amount of the payment in notice of lieu by virtue of the decision above, I make no further award as to compensation.

Notice, Compensation, Double Recovery