ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00052491
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Michael Grady | Stephen Maher Plant Hire |
Representatives | In person | Did not attend |
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-00059963-001 | 08/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00059963-002 | 08/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 | CA-00059963-003 | 08/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00059963-004 | 08/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00059963-005 | 08/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s).
Background:
The complainant was employed by the respondent from a date in October 2022 until 28th July 2023, he was employed as a ground worker and earned a gross weekly wage of approximately €870. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 8th November 2023. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant has submitted five complaints, these are as follows: CA – 00059963 – 001 – a complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant contends that he did not receive his outstanding holiday entitlement when employment ended. The complainant also contends that he did not receive the full tax refund that Revenue informed his employer he was due. The complainant received a tax refund of €2,000 and believes he had an entitlement of €5673.30 as advised by Revenue. CA – 00059963 – 002 – a complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant contends that he was entitled to one weeks’ notice or payment in lieu of this notice. The complainant was informed on a Friday that his employment was ending on that day. CA – 00059963 – 003 – a complaint submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The complainant stated that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment or payment in lieu thereof. CA – 00059963 – 004 – a complaint submitted under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The complainant stated that he did not receive a statement of his terms and conditions of employment. CA – 00059963 – 005 – a complaint submitted under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The complainant stated that he did not receive a statement of his core terms in writing under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the scheduled hearing of the complaint. A letter dated 2nd August 2024 was sent to the Respondent. This letter contained all the required information in relation to the hearing i.e. date, time and venue for the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA – 00059963 – 001 – a complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant is looking for payment for untaken holiday entitlement earned during the course of his employment. The complainant informs that during his employment he took 5 days annual leave. From January 2023 until the end of July 2023 the complainant accrued 11.62 days of annual leave entitlement (1.66 x 7 = 11.62). The balance of annual leave due is therefore 6.62 days. At approximately €870 per week, I calculate that the amount owing to the complainant is €174 x 6.62 = €1,151.88. I now order the respondent to pay to the complainant a gross amount of €1,151.88. Such payment should be made within 42 days from the date of this decision. In relation to the second part of this complaint regarding a refund from Revenue I note that from the information supplied by the complainant that the amount he received (€2,000) was paid to him on 14th November 2022. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 8th November 2023. Section 6(4) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 reads as follows: 6(4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in a case where the rights commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable. In the instant case the complaint was presented over 12 months after the alleged contravention. I have no jurisdiction to consider the complaint as presented. CA – 00059963 – 002 – a complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant was entitled to one weeks’ notice. He received no notice at all. I now order the respondent to pay the complainant a gross sum of €870. Such payment should be made within 42 days from the date of this decision. CA – 00059963 – 003 – a complaint submitted under section 12 of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. The complainant stated that he did not receive his statutory minimum period of notice on the termination of his employment or payment in lieu thereof. I find that this complaint is the same as CA – 00059963 – 002 and therefore find that complaint CA – 00059963 – 003 is not well found. CA – 00059963 – 004 – a complaint submitted under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The Terms of Employment (Information) Act sets out the basic terms of employment which the employer must provide in writing to the employee within 2 months of starting the employment. Failure to do so will leave the employer open to a claim from the employee, pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.The maximum that can be awarded to an employee is 4 weeks’ remuneration. No statement of the employment terms and conditions was issued to the complainant. I now order the respondent to make a gross payment of €3,480.00 to the complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision. CA – 00059963 – 005 – a complaint submitted under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The complainant stated that he did not receive a statement of his core terms in writing under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. Since 4th March 2019 all employers are legally obliged to give a statement of core terms to the employee within 5 days of his/her commencement of employment. This is known as the ‘5 day statement’ and is pursuant to section 7 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 and 2001. In the instant case no statement was issued to the complainant. Compensation for this breach by the respondent is included in CA – 00059963 – 004. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As outlined above. |
Dated: 08/05/25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|