ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051589
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Monica Stockenstrom | Queen Of Clean Services Ltd |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute 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-00063270-001 | 02/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/08/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend.
Background:
The complainant submits that she is owed outstanding annual leave which she did not receive when she left employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant gave evidence that she commenced employment on 20/11/2023 and her employment ended on 05/04/2024 and that during her employment she worked 37.5 hours weekly and her salary was €35,000 which amounts to €18 per hour. She took 5 days annual leave during her time with the respondent and contacted the respondent about her outstanding annual leave but they have not provided it. The complainant submitted copies of her pay slips. She said she had an expectation that she would be kept on by the respondent but they ended her employment abruptly and she was not given a reason and could not get her outstanding annual leave paid to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend. The day before the hearing the respondent advised they would attend and on the morning of the hearing the respondent emailed requesting an adjournment saying they wished to have more time to gather information for the hearing. The respondent submitted on the email that the complainant had taken some annual leave during her employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submits that she did not get her annual leave entitlement. The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing, advised the WRC the day before the hearing that they would attend the hearing, emailed the morning of the hearing requesting an adjournment and did not attend the hearing to request such an adjournment. The respondent had been on notice of the hearing through a letter dated 11/07/2024 from the WRC and in the circumstances I find their failure to attend unexplained.
The complainant’s undisputed credible evidence was that she took 5 days annual leave which amounts to 37.5 hours and that she is owed an additional number of hours. Section 19 outlines Entitlement to Annual Leave 19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to— (a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment), (b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or (c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks): Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.
Taking into consideration Section 19 above and noting that the complainant worked approximately 750 hours during her employment, taking note of the annual leave already taken, the complainant is owed an additional 22.5 hours at the rate of €18 which amounts to €405.
In DWT2421 Excel Roofing Systems Limited V Mr Christian Porter the Labour Court outlined that: Where a contravention of the Act occurs the Labour Court having regard to the CJEU in C-14/83 Von Colson and Karmann v Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen [1986] C.M.L.R 430 must make an award that is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.“
The Labour Court further explained that in the circumstances of that case the Respondent knowingly did not-comply with the law by failing to pay the Complainant his remaining leave entitlement when that complainant’s employment ended. Taking note that the respondent in this instant case did not pay the complainant despite being advised it was outstanding, I award a further payment of €200 by way of compensation. |
Decision:
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.
The complaint is well founded and the respondent must pay amounts of €405 owed for annual leave and I award a further payment of €200 by way of compensation. The total amount owing to the complainant is €605. |
Dated: 19/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, compensation, respondent did not attend |