SECTION 28(1), ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT, 1997
DAME STREET PHARMACY LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Decision WT8582/02/TB.
2. The worker's case is as follows: he commenced working in the Pharmacy in June, 2001, working approximately 20 hours per week, and from September, 2001 to the 17th of February, 2002, working 24 hours per week. He claims that his rate of pay was €9.00 per hour. (There was a dispute between the parties as the hours worked and the rate of pay of the worker). The worker claims that he received no holiday pay, and that he received no overtime for 6 Sundays worked during his time with the Pharmacy.
The Pharmacy's case is that the worker was paid all monies due to him. (It supplied details of the worker's employment to the Court).
The worker referred his case to a Rights Commissioner. The relevant part of his decision was as follows:
"On the uncontested evidence of the claimant I uphold the complaints and award him the following:
(i) In respect of his complaint regarding holiday I award him €633.60.
(ii) In respect of his complaint regarding Sunday premium and basing the award on the prevailing premium in the Dublin Retail Trade appropriate to the claimant I award him €216."
The Pharmacy appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 28(1) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of January, 2003 (the earliest date suitable to the parties)
3. 1. The worker negotiated his own wages and was paid €12 per hour, higher than other employees in the Pharmacy as he claimed that he had greater work experience.
2. Records show that he worked overtime on only 2 Sundays, not 6 as he claims.
3. On his final week he received €667.17. This was for 1 week's pay and 1 week's holiday pay. He owed the Pharmacy €321.17 for goods obtained by him and money borrowed in October, 2001, and this was deducted from him.
4. 1. The worker's own records show that he worked overtime on 6 Sundays, 8 hours per day.
2. The worker did not receive any pay slips during his time with the Pharmacy. He paid back any money that he owed and should not have been deducted money on his last week's wages.
3. The worker did not take any holidays during his employment with the Pharmacy.
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence by the parties in relation to the number of Sundays worked and in relation to the payment of Holiday monies.
The Company indicated that it could produce copies of the rosters to support its position that the employee had not worked the number of Sundays claimed. It was also indicated that documentation would be supplied to prove that he had been paid his holiday allowance, less monies owed to the Company.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Court was supplied with documentation, including copies from a diary during the period in dispute.
The Court examined the documentation supplied but finds that they do not clarify the situation in either of the two disputed areas.
The Court, therefore, having considered all the information before it, upholds the Rights Commissioner's decision in this case and his award to the complainant of €633.60 in regard to non-payment of Holiday pay, and €216.00 to the complainant in regard to non-payment of Sunday Premium.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th March, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.