ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055617
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Gabriela Concepcion Palomo Ramirez | Leeson Catering Limited |
Representatives | Marius Marosan | Did not attend the hearing |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint 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-00067670-001 | 26/11/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00067670-002 | 26/11/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/05/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, these complaints were assigned to me by the Director General. I conducted a hearing on May 12th 2025, at which I made enquiries and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence relevant to the complaints. The complainant, Ms Gabriela Concepcion Palomo Ramirez, was accompanied at the hearing by her husband, Mr Dacian Ureche. She was represented by Mr Marius Marosan. No one attended for the respondent, Leeson Catering Limited, and they were not represented. Having checked the case file, I am satisfied that, on April 4th 2025, they were properly notified of the date and time of the hearing. In the absence of any evidence submitted by the respondent, I have reached the conclusions set out below based on the evidence of Ms Palomo Ramirez.
For the remainder of this document, I will refer to Ms Palomo Ramirez as “the complainant” and to Leeson Catering Limited as “the respondent.”
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent as a waitress in the Indochine Restaurant on Upper Leeson Street in Dublin on May 9th 2025. She was a full-time employee earning €500 per week, equivalent to €12.50 per hour. The complainant went on maternity leave on March 31st 2024. Before her maternity leave came to an end, on August 12th 2024, she resigned, giving her employer two weeks’ notice of her intention not to return to work. She said that she got no response from anyone in the company until September 19th, when she received a payslip indicating that she had been paid €354.55 in holiday pay. A week later, she received another payslip, indicating that she had been paid €323.94 in holiday pay. The money wasn’t transferred to the complainant’s bank account and, during the following two months, she made persistent enquiries with her former employer, but she has not received her holiday pay. In her evidence at the hearing, she said that her account on the website of the Revenue Commissioners shows that the two payments have been registered, but she has not received the money. On November 26th 2024, the complainant submitted a complaint to the WRC under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. She also submitted a complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, because she claims that she wasn’t issued with a statement setting out her terms and conditions of employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00067670-001: Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 Based on her start date of May 9th 2023, during the calendar year 2023, the complainant worked for 34 weeks. She was therefore entitled to 13 days’ holidays ((20/52) x 34). She received pay for 50 hours’ holidays, equivalent to 6.25 days. In 2024, up to the date of the termination of her employment on August 31st 2024, she had been at work for 13 weeks and on maternity leave for 21 weeks. Her holidays therefore accrued over 34 weeks and she was again entitled to 13 days’ holidays. She received pay for 44 hours, equivalent to 5.5 days. When her employment ended therefore, the complainant had an outstanding entitlement to 14.25 days’ holidays (26 – 11.75) which were accrued and not taken. While she was on maternity leave, the complainant was entitled to the benefit of the four public that fell on Easter Monday, April 1st and on first three Mondays in May, June and August, resulting in an entitlement to a further four days’ pay. Based on the evidence of the complainant, I am satisfied that she was entitled to 18.25 days’ pay at the termination of her employment, comprising 14.25 days’ annual leave and four public holidays. In September 2024, the complainant was issued with two payslips indicating that she had been paid €678.49 in two separate payments of €354.55 and €323.94, although the money wasn’t paid. As the payments were not transferred, it is my view that the issuing of these payslips amounts to a payroll fraud. CA-00067670-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 The complainant said that, when she commenced working for the respondent, she received a “starter form,” but no proper statement providing her with the details of her terms and conditions of employment. As the respondent has not attended the hearing to provide any defence or explanation in relation to this claim, I must accept the evidence of the complainant and find that there is substance to her complaint. Having identified the breach of s.3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, in accordance with section 7(2)(d), I am required to order the employer to pay compensation of “such an amount (if any) as is just and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding 4 weeks’ remuneration…” Taking account of the circumstances outlined by the complainant, It is my view that compensation equivalent to four weeks’ pay is just and equitable. |
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-00067670-001: Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €1,450, equivalent to 14.5 days’ pay. CA-00067670-002: Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 I decide that this complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2,000, equivalent to 20 days’ pay. As these awards are compensation breaches of statutory rights, they are not subject to deductions for tax, PRSI or USC. |
Dated: 26-05-2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Catherine Byrne
Key Words:
Holiday pay at cessation of employment, statement of terms and conditions of employment |