Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amanda Ajredini

San Siro Limited trading as Browne’s Steakhouse

Representatives

Self-represented

The respondent did not attend and was not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00064022-001

10/06/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00064022-002

10/06/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00064022-003

10/06/2024

Ms Ajredini (“the complainant”), provided a written statement to the WRC in advance of the hearing.  In her submission, she said that she commenced employment with San Siro Limited, trading as Browne’s Steakhouse in Blanchardstown, on June 10th 2017, as a member of the waiting staff.  On August 9th 2020, she was promoted to the role of assistant manager.  She was paid €100 per day, regardless of the hours she worked.  She said that she often worked more than 10 hours per shift and that sometimes she worked split shifts from 10.00am until 3.00pm and from 6.00pm until closing.  She said that even if she worked shifts of 14 or 15 hours, her pay remained the same at €100 per day.

In the summer of 2022, the complainant said that she raised her concerns about her pay with the owner of the restaurant, Mr Gregory Browne.  She said that her daily rate was increased to €126.92.  She claims that this still meant that, on occasion, she was earning less than the minimum wage.  A payslip dated September 17th 2023 which was appended to her submission shows that she earned €507.58 per week. 

Browne’s Steakhouse ceased trading on December 24th 2023, following a violent assault that ended with the death of two customers.  The complainant said that she was in contact with Mr Browne in January 2024, about re-opening the restaurant and she said that the employees expected to be invited to a meeting, but nothing happened. 

In any event, the restaurant didn’t re-open and the complainant said that Mr Browne didn’t contact the employees to inform them about their entitlement to redundancy pay or notice of the termination of their employment.  In May 2024, the complainant said that she contacted the WRC and she was advised to complete an RP77 form and to send it to Mr Browne by registered post.  She said that she did this on May 24th and when she got no response, on June 10th 2024, she submitted these complaints to the WRC.

The complainant said that she was on an assistant manager’s salary and she got no allowance for working on Sundays.  When she was offered an extra one cent per hour for working on Sundays, she said she stopped working on Sundays.  When she worked on public holidays, she got no extra pay.  When the restaurant closed on a public holiday, such as Christmas Day and December 26th, she received no benefit for the public holiday.

Mr Browne ran two restaurants, Browne’s Steakhouse in Blanchardstown and Castello Bruno in Castleknock.  In her evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that, on three occasions towards the end of 2023, she was rostered until 6.00pm in Browne’s Steakhouse and then she worked in Castello Bruno from 7.00pm until 11.00pm.  She said that she got no pay for working the second shift. 

CA-00064022-001:  Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

Section 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 sets out five specific circumstances in which an employee may be entitled to a redundancy payment, the first of which is:

“(a) the fact his employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purpose of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed[.]”

As the complainant’s employer has ceased operations in the place where she was employed, her job has become redundant.  As she has completed more than two years of service, she is entitled to a redundancy payment.

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, provides that an employee, such as the complainant, with more than five years of service, is entitled to four weeks’ notice from her employer in the event of the termination of her employment.  As the complainant received no notice, she is entitled to be paid in lieu of notice.

CA-00064022-002:  Entitlement to a Sunday Allowance

Section 14 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 provides that employees who are required to work on Sundays will be paid,

1.       An allowance “of such an amount as is reasonable;” or,

2.       By having their weekly pay increased “by such an amount as is reasonable;” or,

3.       By getting time off from work “as is reasonable…” or,

4.       A combination of two or more of the above.  

In her evidence, the complainant said that, because her employer proposed paying her one cent extra per hour for working on Sundays, she didn’t work on Sundays.  For this reason, I cannot consider her claim that she was entitled to be paid an allowance.

CA-00064022-003:  Public Holiday Entitlements

Section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 sets out the entitlement to public holidays:

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely -

(a) a paid day off on that day,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(c) an additional day of annual leave,

(d) an additional day’s pay:

Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.

At the hearing, I explained that, in accordance with s.41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, the timeframe for which I have authority to investigate a complaint about public holidays is confined to the six months before the complaint was submitted to the WRC.  For reasonable cause, in accordance with s.41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, I may extend the time limit to 12 months.  The complainant submitted this complaint to the WRC on June 10th 2024.  I am satisfied that the attack on the restaurant in December 2023 and her employer’s failure to contact her in the months afterwards is sufficient as an explanation of reasonable cause for the delay and I have decided to extend the time limit to 12 months. 

In her evidence, the complainant said that, for the duration of her employment she worked on public holidays.  I have decided therefore, to consider the complainant’s entitlement to a public holiday premium from June 11th 2023 until her last day at work on December 24th 2023.  I must also take account of s.23(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act which deals with public holiday entitlements at the termination of employment:

(2) Where-

(a) an employee ceases to be employed during the week ending on the day before a public holiday, and

(b) the employee has worked for his or her employer during the 4 weeks preceding that week,

the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of his or her entitlements under section 21 in respect of the said public holiday, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to an additional day’s pay calculated at the appropriate daily rate. 

As the complainant’s employment ceased on December 24th 2023, she is entitled to the benefit of the public holidays that fell on December 25th and 26th 2023.

I find therefore that, in accordance with s.21 and s.23(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, the complainant is entitled to an additional day’s pay for working on four public holidays that fell on August 7th, October 30th and December 25th and 26th 2023.

Complaint about Failure to Pay Wages

At the hearing, the complainant informed me about three occasions towards the end of 2023 when she wasn’t paid for three shifts that she worked from 7.00pm until 11.00pm.  The respondent was not properly on notice of this specific complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, and, for this reason, I have decided not to investigate this complaint.

CA-00064022-001:  Complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967

Subject to her PRSI contribution status, I have decided that the complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy payment based on her service from June 10th 2017 until December 24th 2023 and her weekly pay of €507.70.

In accordance with section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, the complainant is entitled to four weeks’ notice.  I therefore direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2,032.  As this compensation is for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

CA-00064022-002:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

For the reasons I have outlined under this complaint heading, I decide that this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00064022-003:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant €507.70 as compensation for her entitlement to a benefit for four public holidays that fell on August 7th, October 30th and December 25th and 26th 2023.  As this compensation is for a breach of a statutory right, it is not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC.

Business closure, redundancy, pay in lieu of notice