ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00053901

Parties:

Complaints:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  08/04/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 for some 9 years as a Feitheoir Scoil Chonaithe.  His employment ended and he submitted complaints for his statutory rights when he was unable to get any answers from the Respondent regarding redundancy pay and other matters.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 26 June 2015 until 31 May 2024.   He was employed working nights, supervising boarders who were boarded overnight in the school.

The facility closed down in May 2024 and he was not advised of this by the Respondent.  He heard about it in the supermarket one day.

CA-00065745-001            Redundancy Payments Act 1967

The Complainant stated that he worked part-time and fulltime over the period of almost 9 years and that he was not given his statutory entitlement to redundancy lump sum payment.

CA-00065745-002            Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

The Complainant stated that he was given no minimum notice.

CA-00065745-003           Minimum Wage Act 2000

The Complainant submitted in his own words, the following:

Regarding working 12-hour nights, on citizensinformation.ie it is stated that workers should be paid even if they are working overnight (including during sleeping hours). I receive €80/night, although working 12 hours, I realise that I was mistaken to initially say 12 hours. I used to work from 18:00-09:15 [15.25hrs] on Sundays (into Monday morning) and 20:00-09:15 [13.25hrs] on weekdays. Therefore, making my ‘work week’ being 41.75hrs (One Sunday night and two weeknights). One Sunday worth €90 and two weekdays worth €80. Both increased by €5 in August 2023. 

The Complainant submitted a spreadsheet showing he was underpaid by €20,912.67 in the period of 9 years.  He also submitted correspondence dated 10 September 2024 in which he requested the Chairman of the Board and the HR Consultant handling the redundancies to provide him with an explanation of his hourly rate.

CA-00065745-004            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant seeks payment for annual leave for the duration of his employment.

CA-00065745-005            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant seeks payment for public holidays.

CA-00065745-006            Protection of Employment Act 1977

The Complainant states that he was not made aware of who his representative was in the matter and consultations regarding collective redundancies.         He was never contacted by a representative.  He along with other colleagues, fellow Supervisors mainly, did not receive any information about redundancies and were not given redundancy lump sums.  As far as he was aware, there were a number of staff represented and given redundancies, e.g. Kitchen, Caretaker, Cleaner, Secretarial and Managerial staff but not Supervisors. 

CA-00065745-007            Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The Complainant states that he never received a written contract of employment.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

A representative of the Board of Management attended a preliminary hearing on 9th January 2025.  He did not attend the second hearing (which was convened due to the Board not having enough time to prepare for the first/preliminary  hearing) on 8th April 2025.

The following is a written submission made on behalf of the Respondent. 

The Respondent is a Friendly Society which provides boarding services at Coláiste an Phiarsaigh and Scoil na nÓg, Irish language schools in Glanmire, Cork. We are in receipt of a number of complaints from erstwhile boarding supervisors. We will deal with each one separately, notwithstanding the similarities between each complaint.

By way of brief background, Gaelachas Teoranta was managed by one person (‘S’) until May 2024, when the decision was made to suspend boarding services in the schools. Unfortunately, S is not in a position to assist us further on account of ill-health. As part of that process after the decision was made to suspend boarding services, we engaged the services of the Society's accountants and HR consultants, and the normal redundancy protocols were followed as appropriate. Employment information was gathered and analysed and those entitled to receive redundancy received same. We as a Board were somewhat disappointed to have received this complaint as full consideration was given to all who were involved in the provision of boarding services. We now turn to each complaint:-

CA-00065745-001 From our records, the complainant does not have 104 weeks continuous employment In order to qualify for a statutory redundancy payment. We do not understand the reference to “off the books”. Those entitled to receive redundancy received same.

CA-00065745-002 In terms of Notice, all supervisors were made aware of the decision to suspend boarding services in the schools once the decision was made.

CA-00065745-003 The rates of pay were agreed by the complainant with S. The Board of Gaelachas Teoranta was not made aware of any issue relating to pay arrangements for boarding. The Board is not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and S, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with Gaelachas Teoranta regarding pay or conditions. The Board cannot find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue. The Board responded to the complainant on receipt of the initial complaint and advised that it was looking into the matter.

CA-00065745-004 There is not enough information in the complaint to deal with this matter.

CA-00065745-005 There is not enough information in the complaint to deal with this matter.

CA-00065745-006 From our records, the complainant did not qualify for a statutory redundancy payment. Those entitled to receive redundancy received same. All redundancy protocols were met by Gaelachas Teoranta.

CA-00065745-007 All terms were agreed by the complainant with S. The Board of Gaelachas Teoranta was not made aware of any issue relating to the complainant’s Contract. The Board is not aware of the arrangements made directly between the complainant and S, nor of any complaint made by the complainant during his time with Gaelachas Teoranta regarding his employment. The Board cannot find any correspondence (email or otherwise) regarding this issue.

Findings and Conclusions:

CA-00065745-001            Redundancy Payments Act 1967

The Complainant stated that he worked part-time and fulltime over the period of almost 9 years and that he was not given his statutory entitlement to redundancy lump sum payment.

Section 7(2) of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), an employee who is dismissed shall be taken to have been 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 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…

I find that the complaint under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967 – 2012 is well-founded and that the complainant is entitled to a redundancy payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement:     26 June 2015

Date of Termination:             31 May 2024

Gross Weekly Pay:                    €270.00

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

CA-00065745-002            Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

Section 4 (2) (c) of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 provides

(2) the minimum notice to be given by an employer to terminate the contract of employment of his employee shall be –

(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.

I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,080.

CA-00065745-003 Minimum Wage Act 2000

Section 24 (2) of the Act provides:

The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements under this Act and, accordingly, shall not refer the dispute to an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23 a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be,

or

(b) where, in respect of the same alleged under-payment, the employer is or has been—

(i) the subject of investigation by an inspector under section 33 or 34, or

(ii) prosecuted for an offence under section 35.

This complaint was received 02 September 2024.  A reading of Section 24(2) above outlines the clear obligations on employees proceeding with a complaint under the Minimum Wage Act.  The Complainant had not received or sought a statement of his hourly rate when he referred his complaint.  I therefore find I do not have jurisdiction in the matter. 

CA-00065745-004            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant seeks payment for annual leave for the duration of his employment.

Section 41 (6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

This complaint was received on 2 September 2024.  In accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the cognisable time period is 03 March 2024 to 31 May 2024 (being the last day of his employment).  I find that in that period, the Complainant was entitled to 1 week’s annual leave.

I find his complaint to be well founded, and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €270 representing the monetary loss together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00065745-005            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The Complainant seeks payment for public holidays. 

Section 21 of the Act provides:

21.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, an employee shall, in respect of a public holiday, be entitled to whichever one of the following his or her employer determines, namely—

This complaint was received on 2 September 2024.  In accordance with Section 41 of the Act, the cognisable time period is 03 March 2024 to 31 May 2024 (being the last day of his employment).  In that period there were 3 public holidays, 18/03/2024, 01/04/2024 and 06/05/2024.  I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €270 being the monetary loss of wages, together with €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00065745-006            Protection of Employment Act 1977

This Act governs the circumstances where employers are obliged to consult with employee representatives in the planning of redundancies.  Section 11A of the Act provides for a decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 9, 10 or 14.  Sections 9 and 10 provide the obligation on employers to consult with representatives.  Section 14 provides that redundancies shall not take effect before the expiry of 30 days after notification.  In this instant case, the Complainant is not a representative, and I have been presented with no evidence to suggest that the Respondent employer did not consult with the representatives.   I find the complaint to be not well founded.

CA-00065745-007            Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Based on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant I find that the Respondent has failed to discharge its obligations under Section 3 of the Act. I find the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,080 compensation.

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-00065745-001            Redundancy Payments Act 1967

Section 39 of the Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the provisions of that Act.

Based on the Reasons and findings above I have decided that the Complainant is entitled to a statutory redundancy lump sum payment based on the following criteria:

Date of Commencement:     26 June 2015

Date of Termination:             31 May 2024

Gross Weekly Pay:                    €270.00

This award is made subject to the complainant having been in insurable employment under the Social Welfare Acts during the relevant period.

CA-00065745-002            Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act 1973

Section 12 of the Act requires that I make a decision in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above I have decided that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,080.

CA-00065745-003           Minimum Wage Act 2000

Section 26 of the Act requires that I make a decision in accordance with the Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

CA-00065745-004            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Section 27 of the Act requires that I make a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above I have decided that the complaint is well founded, and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €270 representing the monetary loss together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00065745-005            Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

Section 27 of the Act requires that I make a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above I have decided that the complaint is well founded, and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €270 representing the monetary loss together with the sum of €2,000 compensation for breach of the Act.

CA-00065745-006            Protection of Employment Act 1977

Section 11A of the Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the provisions of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00065745-007            Terms of Employment (Information) Act

Section 7 of the Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the provisions of that Act.

Based on the reasons and findings above, I have decided that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €1,080 compensation.

Dated:   19-06-25

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: