ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009601
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Cleaner | Shoe Shine Shop |
Representatives | CIS | DID NOT ATTEND |
Interpreter
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00012584-001 | 17/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00012584-002 | 17/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 11 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00012584-003 | 17/07/2017 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00012584-004 | 17/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 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 Cleaner from 1st May 2011 to 15th March 2017. She was paid €288.00 per week and worked €35 hours per week. She has claimed that she did not get holidays, Public Holidays, minimum notice and redundancy payments. Request to extend the time limit The Complainant’s representative stated that the Citizens Information Centre had been trying to negotiate with the Respondent’s representatives to no avail. They wrote letters on behalf of the Complainant. She was not given a contract of employment. She was not given a grievance procedure. She was not told her rights and entitlements. As a foreign national this information would have been particularly important. She is seeking an extension to the time limit. Decision on request to extend the time limit. I note that the Respondent was not in attendance and was not represented. I have decided to grant the extension as I have decided that reasonable cause has been established. In particular, the Complainant did not get a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment. She is a foreign national and this information would have been of particular importance. This complaint was presented to the Commission on 17th July 2017, therefore the period that may be investigated is 18th July 2016 to 15th March 2017, the date of termination. |
|
1)Organisation of Working Time Act CA 12584 - 002
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
She stated that she never got compensated for the Public Holidays. She is claiming in respect of August, October, Dec 25th, 26th 2016 and January , March 17th 2017, a total of 6 Public Holidays. She was only paid for the hours she worked. She is seeking 6 days’ pay. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that the Complainant was not compensated for the Public Holidays that fell within the allowable period 18th July to 15th March 2017. I find that August, October, Dec 25th, 26th 2016, January 1st and March 17th 2017 are due for payment. March 17th fell within the week of termination and so is due. I find that the Complainant was paid €277.50 for a 35-hour week which amounts to €7.92 per hour. The national minimum wage for that period was €9.15 per hour. Therefore, she must be compensated at the legal minimum rate of pay of €64.05 per day X 6 days = €384.30. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that the Respondent has breached Sec 21 of this Act.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €384.30 within six weeks of the date below.
2)Organisation of Working Time Act CA 12584 - 004
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that she did not get any holidays or holiday pay during this employment. She was given unpaid leave. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on uncontested evidence before this hearing I find as follows:
The holiday year runs from 1st April to 31st March each year according to this Act. I find that she did not get any holidays for the allowable period 1st April 2016 to 15th March 2017. I find that she is entitled to 20 days’ holidays as she has worked in excess of 1,365 hours as per Sec 19 of this Act. I find that she is entitled to €64.05 X 20 = €1,281 for the economic loss. I also find that she is entitled to compensation of €1,000 for breach of her rights under thus Act. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that the Respondent has breached Sec 23 of this Act in not paying the holiday entitlement at cessation of employment.
I require the Respondent to pay €1,281 for the economic loss and in addition to pay €1,000 in compensation for breach of her rights under this Act.
These monies are to be paid within six weeks of the date below.
3)Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act CA 12584 003
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
She stated that the business was closed down by the Revenue Commissioners. No notice was given. She is seeking 4 weeks’ pay based on her service. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence I find that the Complainant did not get any minimum notice when the business closed abruptly. Based on her service I find that she is entitled to 4 weeks’ pay amounting to €320.25 X 4 = €1,281. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant minimum notice amounting to €1,281 within six weeks of the date below.
4)Redundancy Payments Acts CA 12584 001
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
She stated that the business was shut down by the Revenue Commissioners. The Complainant sought to get her statutory redundancy payment. She contacted the business accountant and she was issued with a P45 but no redundancy payment. She has claimed her statutory entitlements. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that this business closed abruptly and the Complainant did not receive her statutory entitlements. I find that she is entitled to statutory redundancy payment. I find that her start date was 1st May 2011, the termination date was 15th March 2017. Her legal rate of pay should have been €320.25 per week, not €277.50 for 35 hours. |
Decision:
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to statutory redundancy as per the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act.
This is to be paid within six weeks of the date below.
Any award under the Redundancy Payments Act is subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment for the relevant period under the Social Welfare Acts.
Dated: 27.03.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Holiday pay, Public Holiday pay, Minimum Notice and Redundancy |