Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sarah  Taylor

Randridge International Ltd

Representatives

Roberta Urbon Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00064562-001

01/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00065257-001

01/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00065257-002

01/07/2024

The Complainant was employed as a Marketing and Business Development Executive with the Respondent from 1 August 2005. She stated that she did not receive outstanding wages as well as her notice and holiday entitlements when her employment ended on 5 July 2024.

The Complainant stated that she is owed wages for the week ending 28 June 2024 amounting to EUR 932.34

She also stated that she is owed wages for the week ending 5 July 2024 amounting to EUR 569.25 as well as a further amount of EUR 665.90 in respect of outstanding holiday entitlements when her employment ended on 5 July 2024.

She also stated that she did not receive her notice entitlements namely eight weeks’ notice pay in the amount of EUR 6,881.60 when her employment ended on 5 July 2024.

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant is owed wages for the week ending 28 June 2024 amounting to EUR 932.34

The Respondent accepted that the Complainant is owed wages for the week ending 5 July 2024 amounting to EUR 569.25  that she was not paid and that she was owed a further amount of EUR 665.90 in respect of outstanding holiday entitlements when her employment ended on 5 July 2024.

It was further accepted that she did not receive her notice entitlements namely eight weeks’ notice pay in the amount of EUR 6,881.60

CA-00064562-001:

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a)   any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

Given the undisputed evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that she was not paid in the amount of €932.34 in wages that she was owed by the Respondent.

CA-00065257-001:

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 (“the Act”) defines wages as:

“any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a)   any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise,”

In Marek Balans -v- Tesco Ireland Limited [2020] IEHC 55 approving Dunnes Stores (Cornels court) Limited -v- Lacey [2007] 1 1.R. 478, it was stated a decision-maker must firstly determine what wages are properly payable under the employment contract before determining whether there has been a deduction under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.  While each case will turn on its own particular facts, it is necessary to ascertain, in the instant case, (1) whether the pay constituted a term of the Complainant’s contract and (2) if has there been a contravention of Section 5 of the Act.

Given the undisputed evidence of the Complainant, I am satisfied that she was not paid in the amount of €569.25 in wages that she was owed by the Respondent and €665.90 in the amount of outstanding holiday pay .

CA-00065257-002:

Section 4 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, states:

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,

(b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks,

(c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks,

(d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks,

(e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks.

It was not disputed by the Respondent that the Complainant did not receive her minimum notice entitlements when she was dismissed. Consequently, I find this complaint to be well-founded. Specifically, considering her length of service, which exceeded fifteen years, she is entitled to eight weeks’ notice.

CA-00064562-001:

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent pay compensation to the Complainant in the amount of EUR 932.34. This is a gross figure and is subject to taxation and any statutory deductions.

 CA-00065257-001:

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above. As the Complainant did not dispute the calculation provided by the Respondent, I direct that she be paid compensation in the amount of EUR 1,235.15.

CA-00065257-002:

I find that this complaint is well founded for the reasons set out above and direct that the Respondent pay compensation to the Complainant in the amount of EUR 6,881.60