Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Sabrina  Sanna

Iannelli Catering Limited

Representatives

Self-represented

Mr Daly

Act

Complaint 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-00065946-001

12/09/2024

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

CA-00065946-002

12/09/2024

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

CA-00065946-003

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00065946-004

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00065946-005

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00065946-006

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00065946-007

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00065946-008

12/09/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00065946-009

12/09/2024

Ms Sanna was employed by the respondent as a Cook/Server from 7th August 2023 to 13th July 2024. She earned €431.80 gross per week.

She claims constructive dismissal as she had to leave the employment due to a disagreement on duties. She claims she was not paid compensation for working on Sundays, was not paid for a weeks’ holidays and was not compensated for public holidays. She further claims that the respondent breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act as she had not received a contract or statement of her terms and conditions.

The respondent denies all claims. The respondent representative added that they were objecting to the constructive dismissal case being heard as the complainant was less than 52-weeks service. The respondent objected to the alleged constructive dismissal being heard under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act.

The complainant had made a submission on the circumstances under which she left the employment. Although there was a series of other complaints, she did not particularise the complaints in any detail. She submitted a copy of a cheque received from the respondent in November 2024 who informed her that this payment of €416.70 was for Sunday premium and public holiday pay. She claimed she was also owed 1-weeks holiday pay and that she had not received a contract of employment.

After the hearing, the complainant submitted all her payslips for the relevant period. 

The respondent submitted that they had reviewed all monies outstanding to staff. This was the reason the complainant received a cheque for €416.70 in November 2024. Mr Daly confirmed that this payment was for Sunday premium and public holidays.

Mr Daly denied that the complainant was due a payment for a weeks’ annual leave. It was submitted that a contract had been drawn up and although it was shown to the complainant it was not issued to her due to a translation issue.

After the hearing, the respondent submitted an old contract and a new template contract.

CA-00065946-001- Compensation for Sunday under Organisation of Working Time Act

It was clarified at the hearing that a payment was made in November 2024 for Sunday premium. As this payment was made after the complaints were submitted to the WRC, there was still a breach of the Act, as the complainant was entitled to the compensation arrangement for each Sunday, as she worked them.

I find that the complaint is well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of €200. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-002- Accrued Annual Leave under Organisation of Working Time Act

There was a conflict of evidence as to whether the complainant was owed for one weeks’ pay for holidays. She claims that she took some holidays in May 2024 and was not paid for one week. The respondent denies that the complainant was due a payment for holidays. As there were no records submitted in evidence by either side of holidays taken and holidays due, it is difficult to ascertain the merits of this claim. The complainant has not particularised her claim of the holidays taken and/or due. After the hearing, the complainant submitted all her relevant payslips. Even with this information it is difficult to establish with any degree of certainty whether the complainant was due a payment for one weeks’ holidays.

In the Labour Court Decision of PMc Painting Contractors Ltd v Patriycja Kwidzinska DWT 224 a similar issue arose and even though no records were available from the employer, there was still an onus on the employee to present the specific occasions when breaches of the Act occurred.

Due to the lack of evidence presented to substantiate the breach, I cannot uphold the complaint.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-003- Public Holiday Entitlement under Organisation of Working Time Act

It was clarified at the hearing that a payment was made in November 2024 for public holidays. As this payment was made after the complaints were submitted to the WRC, there was still a breach of the Act, as entitlements are due as the public holidays arise and as they are worked.

I find that the complaint is well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of €200. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-004- Terms and Conditions of Employment

Although the respondent submitted that the complainant was shown a contract, she was not issued with a contract with her terms of employment, as prescribed by the Act. Although a contract was submitted after the hearing, the details did not match the complainant’s commencement date. As required by the Act, the contract was not signed by the respondent.

This was a subsisting breach up until the employment terminated. It was a serious breach as the complainant was unclear of her terms of employment as issues arose at the end of her employment.

I find the complaint well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of 3-weeks’ pay which is €1,295.40. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-005- Terms and Conditions of Employment

This is a provision for workers involved in transport activities and is not relevant to the complainant’s role.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-006- Terms and Conditions of Employment

This is a parallel complaint to CA-00065946-004 which is decided above.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-007- Terms and Conditions of Employment

This is a complaint that the complainant has not been provided with predictable and secure working conditions within one month of a request. As the complainant did not make a request, this complaint is misguided.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-008- Terms and Conditions of Employment

This is a complaint that training has not been provided free of cost or the training was not counted as working time. As the complainant has not provided any evidence of training attended or costs incurred, this complaint cannot be upheld.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-009- Constructive Dismissal

As the complainant has less than 52 weeks in employment, I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

As the employer has objected to the dispute being heard under the Industrial Relations Act, I cannot proceed to hear the dispute and make a recommendation on the merits of the dispute.

CA-00065946-001- Compensation for Sunday under Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of €200. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-002- Accrued Annual Leave under Organisation of Working Time Act

 I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-003- Public Holiday Entitlement under Organisation of Working Time Act

I find that the complaint is well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of €200. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-004- Terms and Conditions of Employment

I find the complaint well founded. I decide that it is just and equitable to require the respondent pay the complainant compensation of 3-weeks’ pay which is €1,295.40. This is redress of compensation for a breach of a statutory right and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.

CA-00065946-005- Terms and Conditions of Employment

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-006- Terms and Conditions of Employment

This is a parallel complaint to CA-00065946-004 which is decided above.

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-007- Terms and Conditions of Employment

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-008- Terms and Conditions of Employment

I find the complaint not well founded.

CA-00065946-009- Constructive Dismissal

As the complainant has less than 52 weeks in employment, I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

As the employer has objected to the dispute being heard under the Industrial Relations Act, I cannot proceed to hear the dispute and make a recommendation on the merits of the dispute.

Organisation of Working Time, Terms of Employment