ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038894
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Mary Fealy | Oasis Of Taste Arklow Ltd Oasis Of Taste Food Court |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00049937-001 | 27/04/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00049937-002 | 27/04/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 relevant to the complaints.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for. The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses presents. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing on 8 October 2024 and 14 November 2024, pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
This case was the subject of two hearings remote hearings. The first hearing which took place on 8 October 2024 was adjourned due to technical difficulties. The second hearing took place on 14 November 2024.
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 19 May 2019. She worked 20 hours per week and was paid €240 per week. Her employment ended on 24 December 2020. A complaint form was received by the WRC on 27 April 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on affirmation at the hearing. She explained that she had commenced employment with the Respondent in May 2019, working in the restaurant and coffee shop. She normally worked three days a week, completing between 20 and 25 hours per week. The Complainant explained that she worked on 24 December 2020 up to 2.00pm, the restaurant then closed for Christmas and never re-opened. The Complainant stated that she never got paid holiday pay due to her, neither was she paid any payment in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant’s employment ended on 24 December 2020 and a complaint form was received by the WRC on 27 April 2022. Section 41 of the 2015 Act states: (1) An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1or 2of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer. (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. (8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause. Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the Complainant’s complaint was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission outside of the relevant statutory time limit provided. A failure on the part of a Complainant to present a complaint in time deprives the me of jurisdiction to hear the claim. |
CA-00049937-001 Complaint under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997
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.
I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
CA-00049937-002 Complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991
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.
I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
Dated: 14th of January 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Time limits |