CORRECTION ORDER
ISSUED PURSUANT TO SECTION 39 OF THE ORGANISATION OF WORKING TIME ACT 1997
This Order corrects the original Decision (ADJ-00052628) issued on 13/02/2025 and should be read in conjunction with that Decision.
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052628
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Bailey | Capcom Building Limited |
Representatives | Matt O'Connor South Leinster Citizens Information Service | Non-attendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00064424-001 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00064424-002 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00064424-003 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00064424-004 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00064424-005 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00064424-006 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00064424-007 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00064424-008 | 26/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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 and his representative attended the hearing, and the complainant undertook to give his evidence under oath. The respondent did not attend the hearing. In advance of the hearing the respondent sought an adjournment as he said that he was not prepared for the hearing. This was refused. He then sought another adjournment at last moment indicating that he was attending a memorial service. He did not provide sufficient detail to the WRC and accordingly the postponement was not granted. The respondent was informed that he needed to attend the hearing to seek an adjournment in person but did not do so. The hearing proceeded in his absence after giving him 15 minutes to join the hearing or otherwise make contact with the WRC. The complainant withdrew three complaints at the start of the hearing, namely CA-00064424-003; -004; and -005. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages The complainant stated that he was not paid appropriate rate for his employment in accordance with the sectoral employment order. He assessed the shortfall in his wages as amounting to €1830.40 for the six months prior to lodging his complaint. He submitted wage slip in support of this contention. The complainant also said that he was not paid for his back week or for his final week that he worked. He submitted that he was owed €720 for each week. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order The complainant stated that he was not paid the appropriate rate in accordance with the sectoral employment order. It was accepted this the same money that he sought under the Payment of Wages Act claim above. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act The complainant stated that he was made redundant on 26 April 2024 but did not receive any redundancy payment. He confirmed that he was paying both tax and PRSI on his wages and he noted that he was on a four-month layoff during the second COVID lockdown period. CA-00064424-007 & 008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment The complainant stated that he was not paid any notice when he was made redundant. He submitted that as he was employed for more than five years, he was he was due four weeks’ notice. The complainant submitted that he was not afforded any of his rights during a notice period. It was also noted that the respondent has not engaged with him from the date he was made redundant up until the date of the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant presented as a credible witness. CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages The complainant submitted that he was due €1830.40 in a shortfall in his wages and €1440 in wages not received. He submitted a payslip to support his contention that he was owes his final week’s wages. As I found the complainant to be a credible witness, I am satisfied that the complaint is well founded and that the Act was contravened, I award the complainant €3270.40 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order The complainant submitted that he was not paid in accordance with the Sectoral Employment Order. As I have already awarded him the appropriate amount for the six months preceding the lodgement of this complaint for a breach of the Payment of Wages Act, it is not appropriate to make an additional award for the same set of facts. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act The complainant’s employment was terminated when his employer decided to let him go following the loss of a contract of work. He submitted that his employer would not pay him a redundancy payment. Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states as follows: 7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided— (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that his employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with Section 7(2)(a) of the Act. I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny his redundancy. The complainant gave evidence of having been employed with the respondent from 7 January 2019 until 26 April 2024, with a period of COVID related layoff from 23 December 2020 until 23 April 2021. Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that his employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with the Act. I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny him redundancy. CA-00064424-007 & -008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that he was made redundant without the provisions of the Act being adhered to. Having regard to the evidence presented by the complainant, I am satisfied that the Act was contravened. Section 4 (1) & (2) of the Act states: 4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks, (c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, (d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks, (e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks. I find that the Act has been breached and that Section 4(2)(c) applies in relation to the cessation of the complainant’s employment. I direct the employer to pay the complainant compensation for the loss he has sustained, i.e. four weeks’ pay, €2880. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the amount of €3270.40 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is it is not appropriate to make an additional award for the same set of facts as an award made under the Payment of Wages Act. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act Having considered all the relevant information provided by the complainant, I am satisfied that he has established that he is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Acts. My decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the employer. 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 a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement:7 January 2019 Date of Termination: 26 April 2024 Period of Layoff: 23 December 2020 to 23 April 2021 Gross Weekly Pay: €720.00 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00064424-007 & -008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was contravened, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation for his loss in the amount of €2880 |
Dated: 13-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – award of pay withheld – SEO – similar set of facts – no order – Redundancy Payment - entitlement established – Minimum notice – contravention – compensation awarded |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052628
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Bailey | Capcom Building Limited |
Representatives | Matt O'Connor South Leinster Citizens Information Service | Non-attendance |
Complaint(s):
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-00064424-001 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015 | CA-00064424-002 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00064424-003 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00064424-004 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00064424-005 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00064424-006 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00064424-007 | 26/06/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00064424-008 | 26/06/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/01/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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 and his representative attended the hearing, and the complainant undertook to give his evidence under oath. The respondent did not attend the hearing. In advance of the hearing the respondent sought an adjournment as he said that he was not prepared for the hearing. This was refused. He then sought another adjournment at last moment indicating that he was attending a memorial service. He did not provide sufficient detail to the WRC and accordingly the postponement was not granted. The respondent was informed that he needed to attend the hearing to seek an adjournment in person but did not do so. The hearing proceeded in his absence after giving him 15 minutes to join the hearing or otherwise make contact with the WRC. The complainant withdrew three complaints at the start of the hearing, namely CA-00064424-003; -004; and -005. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages The complainant stated that he was not paid appropriate rate for his employment in accordance with the sectoral employment order. He assessed the shortfall in his wages as amounting to €1830.40 for the six months prior to lodging his complaint. He submitted wage slip in support of this contention. The complainant also said that he was not paid for his back week or for his final week that he worked. He submitted that he was owed €720 for each week. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order The complainant stated that he was not paid the appropriate rate in accordance with the sectoral employment order. It was accepted this the same money that he sought under the Payment of Wages Act claim above. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act The complainant stated that he was made redundant on 26 April 2024 but did not receive any redundancy payment. He confirmed that he was paying both tax and PRSI on his wages and he noted that he was on a four-month layoff during the second COVID lockdown period. CA-00064424-007 & 008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment The complainant stated that he was not paid any notice when he was made redundant. He submitted that as he was employed for more than five years, he was he was due four weeks’ notice. The complainant submitted that he was not afforded any of his rights during a notice period. It was also noted that the respondent has not engaged with him from the date he was made redundant up until the date of the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing of this matter. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant presented as a credible witness. CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages The complainant submitted that he was due €1830.40 in a shortfall in his wages and €1440 in wages not received. He submitted a payslip to support his contention that he was owes his final week’s wages. As I found the complainant to be a credible witness, I am satisfied that the complaint is well founded and that the Act was contravened, I award the complainant €3270.40 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order The complainant submitted that he was not paid in accordance with the Sectoral Employment Order. As I have already awarded him the appropriate amount for the six months preceding the lodgement of this complaint for a breach of the Payment of Wages Act, it is not appropriate to make an additional award for the same set of facts. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act The complainant’s employment was terminated when his employer decided to let him go following the loss of a contract of work. He submitted that his employer would not pay him a redundancy payment. Section 7(1) and (2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 states as follows: 7.—(1) An employee, if he is dismissed by his employer by reason of redundancy or is laid off or kept on short-time for the minimum period, shall, subject to this Act, be entitled to the payment of moneys which shall be known (and are in this Act referred to) as redundancy payment provided— (a) he has been employed for the requisite period, and (b) he was an employed contributor in employment which was insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, immediately before the date of the termination of his employment, or had ceased to be ordinarily employed in employment which was so insurable in the period of four years ending on that date. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to be dismissed by reason of redundancy if for one or more reasons not related to the employee concerned the dismissal is attributable wholly or mainly to— (a) the fact that his employer has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by him, or has ceased or intends to cease, to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed, or (b) the fact that the requirements of that business for employees to carry out work of a particular kind in the place where he was so employed have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish, or (c) the fact that his employer has decided to carry on the business with fewer or no employees, whether by requiring the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) to be done by other employees or otherwise, or (d) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done in a different manner for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, or (e) the fact that his employer has decided that the work for which the employee had been employed (or had been doing before his dismissal) should henceforward be done by a person who is also capable of doing other work for which the employee is not sufficiently qualified or trained, Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that his employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with Section 7(2)(a) of the Act. I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny his redundancy. The complainant gave evidence of having been employed with the respondent from 7 January 2019 until 26 April 2004, with a period of COVID related layoff from 23 December 2020 until 23 April 2021. Having regard to the foregoing, and to the evidence provided by the complaint, I am satisfied that his employment came to an end by way of redundancy in accordance with the Act. I find that the complainant has established an entitlement to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Act and accordingly, I find favour of the worker in the appeal of the employer’s decision to deny him redundancy. CA-00064424-007 & -008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that he was made redundant without the provisions of the Act being adhered to. Having regard to the evidence presented by the complainant, I am satisfied that the Act was contravened. Section 4 (1) & (2) of the Act states: 4.—(1) An employer shall, in order to terminate the contract of employment of an employee who has been in his continuous service for a period of thirteen weeks or more, give to that employee a minimum period of notice calculated in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section. (2) The minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be— (a) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for less than two years, one week, (b) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for two years or more, but less than five years, two weeks, (c) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for five years or more, but less than ten years, four weeks, (d) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for ten years or more, but less than fifteen years, six weeks, (e) if the employee has been in the continuous service of his employer for fifteen years or more, eight weeks. I find that the Act has been breached and that Section 4(2)(c) applies in relation to the cessation of the complainant’s employment. I direct the employer to pay the complainant compensation for the loss he has sustained, i.e. four weeks’ pay, €2880. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00064424-001 Payment of Wages Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the amount of €3270.40 which I consider to be reasonable in the circumstances. CA-00064424-002 Sectoral Employment Order Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is it is not appropriate to make an additional award for the same set of facts as an award made under the Payment of Wages Act. CA-00064424-006 Redundancy Payments Act Having considered all the relevant information provided by the complainant, I am satisfied that he has established that he is entitled to a redundancy payment in accordance with the Acts. My decision is to allow the complainant’s appeal against the decision of the employer. 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 a statutory redundancy payment based on the following criteria: Date of Commencement:7 January 2019 Date of Termination: 26 April 2024 Period of Layoff: 23 December 2020 to 23 April 2021 Gross Weekly Pay: €720.00 This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period. CA-00064424-007 & -008 Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was contravened, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation for his loss in the amount of €2880 |
Dated: 13-02-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – award of pay withheld – SEO – similar set of facts – no order – Redundancy Payment - entitlement established – Minimum notice – contravention – compensation awarded |