ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00026535
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Peter Hicks | Tirawley Ltd Breaffy House Resort |
Representatives |
| Kevin Feighery Ibec |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute 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-00033777-001 | 14/01/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00033777-002 | 14/01/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00033777-003 | 14/01/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00033777-004 | 14/01/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/08/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter but their representative was present for the hearing. The complainant was employed from 26/04/8/08/19 and worked 40 hours a week at an hourly rate of €11.00 per hour. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00033777-001 The complainant submitted that he was not adequately compensated for the hours he worked on a Sunday. He gave evidence that he was told that he would be paid a Sunday premium of €1 per hour extra. He detailed nine Sundays that he worked and submitted that he was owed an additional €86 in respect of these hours. CA-00033777-002 The complainant submitted that there was a short fall in the hours he received for his final scheduled pay, he received payment for 40 hours but should have received 52 hours. Therefore the shortfall amounted to €132.00
CA-00033777-003 The complainant submitted that he did not receive payment for a shift that he worked on 10 August 2019, and that this shortfall amounted to €49.50 for the five hours he worked.
CA-00033777-004 The complainant submitted that he worked 734.25 hours and received no annual leave. He submitted that he was due 8% of those hours, and that at her hourly rate of €11, this amounts to €646.14
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representative indicated that the complaints were admitted and that they would not be mounting a defence. He also indicated that it was the respondent’s intention to pay the outstanding monies to the complainant in the near future. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00033777-001 Having considered the written and oral submissions made in this complaint, I find that this complaint is well founded. CA-00033777-002 Having considered the written and oral submissions made in this complaint, I find that this complaint is well founded. CA-00033772-003 Having considered the written and oral submissions made in this complaint, I find that this complaint is well founded. CA-00033777-004 Section 23 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 states that (1) (a) Where — (i) an employee ceases to be employed, and (ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave. Having considered the written and oral submissions made in this complaint, I find that this complaint is well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00033772-001 Arising from my findings, my decision is that this complaint is well founded, and I direct the employer to pay the complainant compensation of €86 (less any lawful deductions), which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00033772-002 Arising from my findings, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I direct the employer to pay the complainant compensation of €132 (less any lawful deductions), which consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00033772-003 Arising from my findings, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I direct the employer to pay the complainant compensation of €49.50 (less any lawful deductions), which consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00033777-004 Arising from my findings, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and under Section 27 3(b) I require the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, i.e. to pay the outstanding payment to the employee, i.e. €646.14. In addition, under Section 27 3(c) I award the employee compensation equivalent to four weeks’ pay, i.e. €1,760.00 which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint. |
Dated: 8th September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words: