Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Cleaner

A Childcare Facility

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015625-001

06/11/2017

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

CA-00015625-002

06/11/2017

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

CA-00015625-003

05/11/2017

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

CA-00015625-004

05/11/2017

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

CA-00015625-005

05/11/2017

The complainant was employed as a cleaner from March 1st 2012 on a wage of €205 per week. There is a related complaint which is dealt with in ADJ 12935

The complainant was ‘laid off’ on August 25th 2017 and her employment terminated on January 1st 2018.

She served notice to this effect by means of Form RP 9 on November 1st 2017. Under this procedure the respondent has one week to respond with either a reinstatement of the complainant to full employment or to make her redundant in accordance with the terms of the Redundancy Payments Acts.

The respondent did not reply.

CA-00015625-001 and 002 relates to breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act. The complainant did receive a statutory statement when she was initially employed (by a different entity, which changed in 2014) but it is defective in a number of respects.

It fails to accurately identify the employer, (following the change of employment) the hours of work are not set out properly, there is no information on rest breaks and the pay period for purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act is not properly identified.

CA-00015625- 003 relates to a claim for two days’ annual leave not taken.

CA-00015625-004 and 005 are claims for payment for the August and October Public Holidays respectively.

The respondent says that the company got into trading difficulties which became obvious initially in May 2017.

However, it continued to operate while it made alternative plans for a new location but which required planning permission.

This was expected to come through in Mid-November but this did not materialise.

The temporary lay-off on August 25th was by agreement and it was always the respondent ‘s hope that there would be a return to normal employment by mid-November.

The respondent received an email from the complainant on October 5th requesting an update on the situation.

The respondent did not reply until October 30th offering a meeting.

It is accepted that a payment should have been made in respect of the October public holiday.

The respondent accepted that payment was due for the October public holiday and did not offer any opposition to the other complaints.

All the complaints are upheld.

The complainant earned (according to the complaint form) €205 per twenty-hour week and my calculations are based on this.

I uphold complaints CA-00015625-001 and 002 related to breaches of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act and award the complainant one week’s wages in the amount of €205.

I uphold complaints CA-00015625-003 (two days’ annual leave not taken) and CA-00015625-004 and 005 claims for payment of for the August and October Public Holidays respectively) and award the complainant four days’ pay; totalling €164.

Lay off, Public holidays.