ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00054335
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Niamh Feely | Aaron Coughlin, trading as Finn McCools Bar, Ballyshannon |
Representatives | In person | In person |
Complaint(s):
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-00066150-001 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066150-002 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00066150-003 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00066150-004 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00066150-005 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00066150-006 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00066150-007 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00066150-008 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00066150-009 | 19/09/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00066150-010 | 19/09/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 9/12/2024 and 11/02/2025 in Letterkenny Courthouse
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence, including written submissions, relevant to the complaints.
Background:
Adjudication Process
The Complainant issued 10 complaints.
At the first Adjudication hearing on 9/12/2024 the hearing was adjourned to allow the parties to file written submissions within an agreed time frame (the Complainant by close of business on 20 December 2024; the Respondent by close of business on 15 January.)
On 11/2/2025 the Complainant attended the second Adjudication hearing at 10.30am as scheduled, and the Respondent did not attend. The hearing proceeded. Mid way through the hearing at 11.45am the Respondent arrived. He stated that he had not been made aware of the hearing. The Adjudicator advised him that no submissions had been filed by him despite him agreeing on the first hearing day to do so on or before 15 January. He said that WRC hearing notification had been sent to the bar premises by post which he no longer had access to. He said that the only reason that he knew about the hearing was because former staff members told him. He stated that postal service should not have been used given that he provided an email address to the WRC on the first adjudication day. He advised the AO that the only notification that he got from the WRC was a letter relating to the cancellation of a related hearing on 14 January.
The Respondent accepted that he received written submissions by email from the Complainant directly and that he knew that he had a deadline of 15 January to file his submission and did not and did not contact the WRC then but did attempt to contact the WRC the day before the second hearing day and Letterkenny courthouse, Letterkenny Court house staff did not know what WRC cases were listed for hearing because it is outside of the Court Service remit and it transpired that the Complainant had contacted the Inspectorate Division of the WRC as opposed to the Adjudicative Division of the WRC. Significantly he did not phone or email the PRU of the WRC which is listed on the letters that he accepts he did receive.
As the Respondent was not properly put on notice of the second hearing date, when the Respondent arrived at the hearing on 11 February 2025 the Adjudicator restarted the hearing and gave him a summary of the evidence that had been given in respect of the related case (Adj 54333) brought by the son of the Complainant. The Respondent was invited him to respond to those complaints.
After he gave sworn evidence in respect of the related case but before the Complainant’s evidence had commenced, the Respondent advised the AO that he intended to leave the hearing. The AO advised him that that was not advisable because a decision would issue and it was in his interests to remain and to participate in both hearings, but he still decided to leave the hearing. The hearing proceeded thereafter in his absence. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave the following evidence in respect of each complaint under oath: The Complainant worked at the Respondent’s public house as a bar tender and bar manager from April 2022. She had previously worked for the Respondent in other bar businesses but was working solely in Finn McCools bar when her employment was terminated in June 2024. The Respondent owned the bar and employed the Complainant. The Complainant’s son also worked there. The working arrangement with the Respondent was fine until June 2024 although throughout the employment the Respondent was an arm’s length employer. He ordered stock and took takings at the end of the week but his day-to-day practical involvement with the business was sparse and inconsistent. The Respondent did not own the bar building. He rented it and he had other bars in Ballyshannon and in Sligo although not all at the same time. But the Respondent’ main job was working as a flooring specialist. He had a lot going on. Following a disagreement between the Respondent and the Complainant’s partner (they had been good friends until then) without warning and following a health inspection the Respondent closed the bar. The Respondent reopened the bar in July and there was a formal opening event in August 2024, but the bar closed some time afterward. After her dismissal in June 2024 the Respondent did not contact the Complainant and when he reopened the bar, he did not employ the Complainant. He employed different bar staff instead. Neither she nor her son were employed. The Complainant believes that this was because the Respondent blamed them for the disagreement that took place between the Complainant’s partner and the Respondent. The Complainant requested the Adjudicator to investigate complaints within a 6-month period prior to the issue of her complaint that is between 19 March 2024 – 6 June 2024 when her employment ended – hereafter referred to as the reckonable period and that the following employment breaches occurred.) CA-00066150-001 – Sunday Premium, Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA) In the reckonable period the Complainant states that she worked 5 Sundays and seeks a premium or uplift of one third of what she was paid, (€17.33 instead of €13 per hour for 6 hours for each Sunday that she worked) The Complainant seeks an award of €519.90 CA-00066150-002– Payment of Wages Act (PWA) The Complainant was not fully paid her wages for 2, 3, 4, and 5 June 2024. The shortfall in wages was for 41 hours. Based on 41 hours at a pay rate of €13.00 per hour, she seeks an award of €533.00 CA-00066150-003 - PWA The Complainant states that she worked for the Respondent for over two years and was not given two weeks’ notice prior to her employment ending on 6.6.2024. The Complainant seeks an award in lieu of Minimum Notice; €936.00 CA-00066150-004- OWTA. The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the Adjudication hearing CA-00066150-005 – OWTA - The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the Adjudication hearing CA-00066150-006– OWTA - The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the Adjudication hearing CA-00066150-007– Terms of Employment Information Act (TOEIA) The Complainant states that she was not provided with a contract in writing. CA-00066150-008– Unfair Dismissal The Complainant, like all staff, was advised by text by the Respondent that the bar would close because it needed to be repaired and redecorated to comply a health inspection. The Respondent opened the bar in July 2014 with a public opening in August. The Complainant was not contacted and was not rostered to work. The Complainant believes that because the Respondent had a disagreement with the Complainant’s father (they were good friends until this disagreement) and that the Respondent decided not to employ the Complainant because of this disagreement. No explanation was given. There was no investigation. No process was applied. No reason for dismissal was provided to the Complainant. The Complainant’s loss arising from her dismissal lasted for 13 weeks, following which the Complainant got another job. She started work on 12 September. Her period of loss was 6.6.2024 – 12.9.2024. She looked for work but was unable to get anything until September. She seeks an award of €6084.00 CA-00066150-009 – The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the Adjudication hearing CA-00066150-010 – The Complainant withdrew this complaint at the Adjudication hearing The Complainant concluded her evidence by stating that the period of time since June 2024 has been very difficult. He relationship with the Respondent had been a positive one until then. It is a regrettable situation. Their relationship was soured by a disagreement that she had nothing to do with. It did not have to end like this. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no participation in this adjudication by or on behalf of the Respondent |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00066150-001 – Sunday Premium, Organisation of Working Time Act (OWTA) Based on the fact that the Respondent withdrew from the Adjudication hearing and did not provide evidence to counter the evidence of the Complainant, I find this complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant €519.90 CA-00066150-002– Payment of Wages Act (PWA) Based on the fact that the Respondent withdrew from the Adjudication hearing and did not provide evidence to counter the evidence of the Complainant, I find this complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant €533.00 CA-00066150-003 - PWA Based on the fact that the Respondent withdrew from the Adjudication hearing and did not provide evidence to counter the evidence of the Complainant, I find this complaint is well founded and I award the Complainant; €936.00 CA-00066150-007– Terms of Employment Information Act (TOEIA) Based on the fact that the Respondent withdrew from the Adjudication hearing and did not provide evidence to counter the evidence of the Complainant that no contract was provided, I find this complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant four weeks wages €1872.00 CA-00066150-008– Unfair Dismissal Based on the Respondent withdrawing from the Adjudication hearing and not providing evidence to counter the evidence of the Complainant, I find this complaint is well founded. I reduce the award to reflect ten as opposed to 13 weeks loss of wages based on the skills that the Complainant possesses that it was reasonable for her to mitigate her loss, partially if not wholly, within a period of ten weeks. I award the Complainant €4680.00 |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00066150-001 –This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €519.90 CA-00066150-002– This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €533.00 CA-00066150-003 - This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant; €936.00 CA-00066150-007– This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €1872.00 CA-00066150-008– This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant €4680.00 All other complaints are withdrawn |
Dated: 17th February 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|