Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Haroldo  Ribeiro Larrubia

The Accommodation Kingdom Limited The Accommodation King

Representatives

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-00063163-001

28/04/2024

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

CA-00063163-002

28/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00063163-003

28/04/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00063163-004

28/04/2024

The Complainant left the Respondent company at the start of March 2024 after having taken almost the entire month of February as leave.

The Complainant submits he was not paid for this leave or any annual leave. He also submits that he was not paid the days he worked on his return.

The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation and with the assistance of an interpreter. He made extensive written submissions.

The Respondent’s Director Mr Brian Reilly gave evidence under affirmation and made extensive written submissions on behalf of the Respondent.

Organisation of Working Time Act

The Complainant’s evidence was that he had not received annual leave. His role involved managing Airbnb rentals and his employer expected him to cover a set of properties and to just take time off where he could. He found that this system did not allow him to take paid annual leave where he could be unavailable to his employer for any extended periods. This was until he went abroad in February 2024 shortly before his resignation. His employer did not pay him while he took these holidays and only paid him for some of that leave after he had left the job.

The Respondent argues that the Complainant’s complaint does not encompass the entire leave year and is limited only to his recent leave. On review of the complaint and having read it alongside the Complainant’s submissions sent to the WRC on the 10th of June 2024 and forwarded to the Respondent I am satisfied that the Complainant has submitted a complaint that he had not been paid annual leave by his employer, in breach of the act and that this is wider in scope than just the most recent leave.

The Respondent does not dispute that it failed to ensure that the Complainant took annual leave though they believe he knew that this was a feature of the role before he took it on and they point to specific instances of when they provided cover so the Complainant could take some leave.  

Section 23 of the act provides a clear obligation on the employer to pay outstanding annual leave relating to the current leave year on cessation. I am not at all satisfied that the Respondent has done so. The Complainant does not accept that days he was given cover amounted to annual leave. Annual leave is not the only time an employee is off work and the Complainant was of course entitled to weekly rest periods which both parties accept did not necessarily happen on the weekends. The Respondent generally failed to maintain records as required by Section 25 of the act. In the circumstances I do not think they have established that they paid the Complainant his annual leave entitlement.

Redress

Section 27(3) of the act provides that:

A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,

(c) require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment.

The Complainant was paid approximately €760 per week and at cessation he was entitled to just under 20 days annual leave. I acknowledge there was an attempt to pay part of this after the Complainant left his employment but the Respondent has simply failed to provide sufficient evidence that this was the extent of his entitlement and did not overlap with other required rest periods. I am also not entirely clear as to the Complainant’s loss as he himself did not provide any sort of detailed account of his working patterns.

I am satisfied that the Respondent’s failure to provide pay the Complainant’s outstanding annual leave on cessation was part of a wider failure to provide structured and transparent leave and working time practices and that this was a source of stress and isolation for the Complainant.

Having regard to all the circumstances and I am satisfied that the Respondent should pay the Complainant compensation of €3300.   

Payment of Wages Act

The Respondent provided detailed submissions and evidence as to the payments made to the Complainant after he exited the company. On review of this evidence and the Complainant’s oral evidence I can identify no unlawful deductions from the Complainant’s wages which were not subsequently addressed.

CA-00063163-001

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €3300 in compensation.

CA-00063163-002

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00063163-003

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00063163-004

I find that the complaint is not well founded.