ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051940
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marcin Gawor | The Burgerstory |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00063565-001 | 20/05/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. Parties were advised in advance of the hearing that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that the hearing would be held in public, that an Adjudication Officer may take evidence under oath or affirmation and reminded that cross examination was permitted. Where submissions were received, they were exchanged. The complainant gave evidence under affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submits he did not receive appropriate pay and the respondent did not attend.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he commenced employment on 06/09/2021 as a chef and left on 03/05/2024 and earned €500 gross weekly and that he did not receive holiday pay. His evidence was that during his employment he took approximately 4 days annual leave and was told the money was coming but never came and that the pay slip did not match what was actually received. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and submitted by email that there was monies owed totalling €955.49 |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant submits that he is owed annual leave and the respondent did not attend and submits that there are monies owed.
It is set out under Section 19 Entitlement to Annual Leave 19.—(1) Subject to the First Schedule (which contains transitional provisions in respect of the leave years 1996 to 1998), an employee shall be entitled to paid annual leave (in this Act referred to as “annual leave”) equal to— (a) 4 working weeks in a leave year in which he or she works at least 1,365 hours (unless it is a leave year in which he or she changes employment), (b) one-third of a working week for each month in the leave year in which he or she works at least 117 hours, or (c) 8 per cent. of the hours he or she works in a leave year (but subject to a maximum of 4 working weeks): Provided that if more than one of the preceding paragraphs is applicable in the case concerned and the period of annual leave of the employee, determined in accordance with each of those paragraphs, is not identical, the annual leave to which the employee shall be entitled shall be equal to whichever of those periods is the greater.
The evidence of the complainant which is undisputed is that he is owed annual leave and during his time and took approximately 4 days annual leave. I find in all the circumstances of the case that the complainant is owed 16 days annual leave and I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €1,200. |
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 find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant €1,200. |
Dated: 01st of July 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave |