Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John  Cleary

Ruatech Civils Contractors Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Self-Represented

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-00065170-001

02/08/2024

The Complainant appeared in person and gave evidence on affirmation.

Mr Peter Curtis and Ms Grace Powell gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The name of the Respondent was confirmed and amended on consent.

Documentary evidence were received from both parties in advance of the hearing.

The date of commencement was confirmed as 21 August 2023 with the termination date being 25 June 2024, being the date the letter of termination was received.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that his employment was terminated, and he did not receive any notice payment where he expected one week at a minimum.

It was Ms Powell’s evidence that she was instructed by Mr Curtis to issue a termination later which she sent on 25 June 2024. She explained the date of 21 June 2024 was the Complainant’s last date worked.

Mr Curtis gave evidence that where the Complainant refused alternative work and did not respond to his offer of temporary layoff letter, the Complainant’s employment was terminated. He accepted he did not pay him a notice period.

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—

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

The Respondent accepted the Complainant was not paid his minimum notice.

Consequently, I find there was a contravention of the Act.  

Much was made as to the gross weekly wage received by the Complainant. The Complainant and Respondent both agreed it was a net figure of €750 per week but were unclear as to the gross figure. Ms Powell gave evidence of a payslip with a gross sum of €2,419.71 but was unclear as to whether this was weekly or fortnightly. Mr Curtis’ s evidence was the gross pay was “around €1,100”.

In the absence of clear evidence as to the weekly pay, on the balance of probabilities, I find the sum of €1,209.86 was the Complainant’s gross weekly wage which is half of the sum read into evidence by Ms Powell from a payslip.

Redress

Section 12 (1) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides redress in the following terms:

“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 find there was a contravention of the Act and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation inn the sum of €3,024.65 being the loss sustained by the Complainant by reason of the contravention where he obtained alternative employment on 8 July 2024.

Minimum Notice