ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00053505
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Séamus Keenan | Monaghan County Council |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {text} | {text} |
Representatives |
| LGMA |
Complaints:
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-00065244-001 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00065244-002 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065244-003 | 07/08/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00065244-004 | 07/08/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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. Ms Sinead McCann took the affirmation for the respondent.
Background:
The complainant submits that he should be compensated as the respondent would not pay him his annual leave when his employment ended. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00065244-001
This complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00065244-002
This complaint was withdrawn. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00065244-003
This complaint was withdrawn |
Summary of Complainant’s Case: CA-00065244-004
The complainant gave evidence that he resigned on 04/06/2024 and the respondent withheld his accrued annual leave and that he should receive compensation. He said he has a family and needed the money accrued from his annual leave at the time and should not have had to go to the WRC to get his entitlement. When he queried this he was advised:
“"The payment of five days annual leave is Monaghan County Councits procedure for a tong num6er of years. Some Locat Authorities do not pay any annual leave when staff resign. We witt contact MyPay and arrange for your paystips to be posted to you.”
His annual leave entitlement was paid after he submitted his complaint to the WRC.
There was no cross examination of the complainant’s evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case: CA-00065244-004
It was submitted that the annual leave was not paid at the time as the respondent was incorrect in its interpretation of annual leave policy. It was an error by the respondent and the monies have since been paid. The contract is very clear that annual leave will be paid and it was submitted that the 10 days annual leave was paid out in October 2024 and the complainant had not given the expected notice provided for in his contract. |
Findings and Conclusions: CA-00065244-004
The complainant submitted that the respondent would not pay his annual leave entitlement when his employment ended. The respondent submits that this was in error and that the annual leave was eventually paid.
Section 23 of the Act in relevant part provides as follows: Compensation on cesser of employment. 23.—(1) (a) Where— (i) an employee ceases to be employed, and (ii) the whole or any portion of the annual leave in respect of the relevant period remains to be granted to the employee, the employee shall, as compensation for the loss of that annual leave, be paid by his or her employer an amount equal to the pay, calculated at the normal weekly rate or, as the case may be, at a rate proportionate to the normal weekly rate, that he or she would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave. . It would appear from the evidence that the complainant left his employment on 03/06/2024 and the respondent did not pay his annual leave until October 2024. While I note that the respondent submits that this was in error, it would not appear from the circumstances of the complaint that this was owing to the respondent’s unhappiness with the notice that the complainant gave.
I note in DWT2421 Excel Roofing Systems Limited V Mr Christian Porter the Labour Court outlined that: Where a contravention of the Act occurs the Labour Court having regard to the CJEU in C-14/83 Von Colson and Karmann v Land Nordrhein-Westfahlen [1986] C.M.L.R 430 must make an award that is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.“
As with the above-mentioned case, in this instant case I find that the Respondent knowingly did not-comply with the law by failing to pay the Complainant his remaining leave entitlement when the employment ended. While I note that the annual leave was eventually paid this arose after the complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC and I find the complaint well founded and award a payment of €1,500 by way of compensation which I find just and equitable in all the circumstances. |
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.
CA-00065244-004 I find the complaint well founded and award a payment of €1,500 by way of compensation which I find just and equitable in all the circumstances. |
Dated: 02-05-25
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Annual leave, termination of employment, compensation |