ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007935
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | A Bar Manager | A Hospitality Sector |
Complaints:
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-00010608-001 | 03/04/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 |
CA-00010608-002 | 03/04/2017 |
Venue: Ardboyne Hotel, Navan, Co. Meath.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 21/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Bar Manager from the 3rd of August 2010 to the 3rd of October 2016. She alleges that she was not paid her holiday entitlements and her minimum notice entitlements contrary to Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. She filed a complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 3rd of April, 2017. TIME LIMITS The Complainant filed her complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission on the 3rd of April, 2017. The currency of the complaint runs from the 4th of October 2016 to the 3rd of April 2017. The Complainant’s employment terminated on the 3rd of October 2016. Section 6(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 provides; ‘An adjudicator shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in the case where the adjudicator is satisfied that reasonable cause prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the adjudicator considers reasonable.’ The Complainant’s representative outlined the following submission as to why the adjudicator should allow for a 6 month extension of the time-limit. The Complainant raised the non-payment of wages with the Respondent on the 5th of October 2016. She received no response from the Respondent. She sent letters dated the 7th and 14th of October to the Respondent outlining her concerns relating to the non-payment of wages. She received no response from the Respondent. On the 30th of November 2016, the Respondent sent her a text which indicated that he was willing to pay her wages. On the 8th of December 2016, she was called to the local Garda station and was advised that the Respondent had made a complaint against her in relation to theft. This was the first time that she was advised that there was any complaint of theft made against her. She was concerned about the complaint was made against her and was also concerned that a criminal investigation may be carried out. She became ill and depressed as a result of the allegation of theft. This was the main reason that she failed to present her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission within the time limits allowed for under the 1991 Act. She has since heard nothing of the allegation of theft. DECISION ON TIME LIMIT: I have decided that I will allow an extension of the time limit of 6 months due to reasonable cause. |
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Complaint 1 : CA-00010608-001 The Complainant was not paid her full holiday entitlements on the termination of her employment. The Complainant has accrued an entitled to 2.88 weeks annual leave. She was paid at the rate of €451.02 per week. Therefore she is entitled to be paid €1298.93 cent holiday pay. The Complainant already received payment in the sum of €625.00; therefore she is owed a balance of €673.93. Complaint 2: CA-00010608-002 The Complainant was not paid her Statutory Minimum Notice of two weeks. She was paid at the rate of €451.02 per week, therefore she has an entitlement to be paid €902.93. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaints are well-founded. The Respondent failed to pay the complainant outstanding holiday pay in the sum of €673.93 and also failed to pay her Minimum Notice Entitlement in the sum of €902.93. |
Decision:
Complaint 1: CA-00010608-001 Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €673.93 in relation to outstanding holiday pay. Complaint 2: CA-00010608-002
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €902.93 in relation to her minimum notice entitlements. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the outstanding wages of €1576.86.
|
Dated: 20/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Walsh