Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Elaine Spencer

MTG Import Company Limited

Representatives

N/A

Eddie Kelly, Eddie Kelly & Company

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-00065446-001

14/08/2024

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

CA-00065446-002

14/08/2024

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

CA-00065446-003

14/08/2024

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

CA-00065446-004

14/08/2024

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

CA-00065446-005

14/08/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00065446-006

14/08/2024

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

CA-00065446-007

14/08/2024

The Complainant was employed as a Sales Assistant by the Respondent during two periods of employment, from: August 20222 until June 2023; and from December 2023 until end May 2024. During her employment she earned approximately €228.60 per week, working an 18-hour week at €12.70 per hour. The Complainant raises a number of complaints regarding, inter alia, an alleged failure to provide a contract of employment; an alleged failure to pay for public holidays (also referred to in the evidence as bank holidays); and penalisation. The WRC Complaint Form is dated 14 August 2024.

The Complainant provided written and oral submissions.

The Complainant outlined that she worked as a Sales Assistant in a shop called “ToGo”, under the Respondent’s name. She outlined that she worked for the Respondent from August 2022 until June 2023 and that she returned to work for the Respondent from December 2023 until end May 2024.

She stated that she worked on the cash register and that she worked on the floor, stocking shelves, dealing with customers, and keeping the area tidy. She outlined that she did all that she was asked to do by her Managers – initially Josef and subsequently Chan and then Jian. She stated that she was only provided with her payslips when she required them for social welfare part-payments. She further stated that she was paid by her Manager, in takings from the cash register. She outlined that in January 2023, the Respondent incorrectly informed Revenue that she was no longer in employment. She said that she was notified by Social Welfare that her social welfare part-payments were stopped as a result and that this caused her a lot of stress. She said that she had to travel to Carlow to meet Ms. Weng to complete the necessary forms and resolve the matter. She outlined that this development led to a break between her two periods of employment as she experienced a difficult time after her social welfare was stopped and her health declined.

CA00065446-001 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – Public Holiday Entitlements:

The Complainant submitted that her payslips incorrectly indicate that she received public holiday pay, when she did not.

In terms of her first period of employment, the Complainant referred to the payslips dated 7 January 2023, 11 February 2023, 18 March 2023 and 15 April 2023. She stated that she was never paid the public holiday pay referred to in those payslips.

In terms of her second period of employment, the Complainant referred to the payslips dated 29 December 2023, 7 January 2024, 24 March 2024, 7 April 2024, 12 May 2024, 26 May 2024, 19 May 2024 and 9 June 2024. She stated that she was never paid the public holiday pay referred to in those payslips. The Complainant also referred to her final payslip dated 13 October 2024 and stated that she did not receive any pay for “holiday / bonus / other”.

The Complainant submitted that she only received pay for the St. Patrick’s Day public holiday, on 24 March 2024.

Together:

CA00065446-002 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Statement in Writing on Terms of Employment:

CA00065446-003 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Notification in Writing of Change to Terms of Employment:

CA00065446-004 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms in Writing:

CA00065446-005 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms which Deliberately Contained False or Misleading Information:

The Complainant outlined that she received “three or four” incorrect versions of her contract of employment approximately five months into her second period of employment, between April and July 2024. She said that she engaged in correspondence with Ms. Weng and Mr. Kelly regarding the matter.

The Complainant stated that in April 2024, she was asked to sign the last page of her contract of employment but that she did not do so as she wanted to see a full copy of her contract. She said that her agreed hours were 4.5 hours per day, for four days from Monday to Thursday inclusive. She said that her first and second contracts of employment indicated that she was employed on a casual basis. She stated that her third contract of employment indicated that she worked 12 hours per week, from 9.30 until 2pm from Tuesday to Thursday inclusive; and that on occasion, if required, she would work on Mondays and Fridays. She referred to letters and text messages to the Respondent, in which she highlighted her concerns regarding the inaccuracies in the contracts of employment.

In terms of changes to her contract, the Complainant outlined that she had agreed verbally with her Manager, Chan, that she would work 18 hours per week from Monday to Thursday. She said that she also raised her concerns with Chan that she was not receiving public holiday pay. She said that in March 2024, he changed her workdays from Tuesday to Friday inclusive and told her that as she did not work on Mondays, she would not be paid for the relevant public holidays. She said that she subsequently sought a day off and was told that her hours were then reduced to three days from Tuesday to Thursday inclusive. The Complainant outlined that she told Chan that this was unacceptable. She referred to registered letters dated 1 and 3 April 2024 that she sent to the Respondent. She said that she was told on 28 May 2024 that she was not to return to work unless she signed her contract of employment. She said that she did not sign the contract and so she did not return to work.

The Complainant collected a contract of employment from the shop on 23 June 2024, which she subsequently reviewed. As regards the “false or misleading information” complaint, the Complainant referred to an email dated 17 July 2024 that she sent to Mr. Kelly which outlined a number of her concerns and questions regarding her latest contract of employment. She said that she only received a response on 22 July 2024, to which she replied on 23 July 2024, confirming that she worked 18 hours per week from Monday to Friday. The Complainant subsequently brought her complaint to the WRC.

Finally, the Complainant stated that she never received her core terms of employment in writing.

CA-00065446-006 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety at Work Act 2005 – Penalised for Complying With Act or for Making a Complaint:

The Complainant outlined that when she complained about her public holiday pay, her working day on Monday “was taken” from her. The Complainant stated that Ms. Weng told her that she could only be paid for a public holiday if she worked on a Monday. She outlined that her workdays were then moved from Tuesday to Friday inclusive and then reduced to three days from Tuesday to Thursday inclusive, which resulted in a reduction in her hours from 18 to 12 hours.

CA-00065446-007 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Penalised or Threatened with Penalisation for Invoking or Having Given Notice of Intention to Exercise Rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The Complainant stated that when she informed the Respondent that she would involve the WRC in relation to the public holiday pay complaint and in relation to her contract of employment complaint, her hours were cut down and her communications regarding annual leave were ignored.

Conclusion:

The Complainant outlined that there was never a compromise with the Respondent who just ignored her. She said that her hours had to suit her family and homelife. She said that her colleagues’ hours were not reduced. She said that these developments had a great impact on her as a single parent. She said that she was treated as if she did not matter.

The Complainant outlined that she did not bring her WRC complaints sooner as she did not know that she could claim for public holiday pay. She said that she was focussed on having an income. The Complainant outlined that she wants an acknowledgment of what is fair.

Cross-Examination:

The Complainant outlined that she only now referred to issues during her first period of employment as the Respondent had put the relevant payslips into evidence. She said that she resigned from her first period of employment in 2023, as the Respondent’s notification to Revenue that her employment had ceased and the subsequent issues regarding her social welfare part-payments had “caused her grief”.

The Complainant outlined that she received no public holiday pay or annual leave pay. She said that she was paid in cash takings from the cash register, after her hours were written down and totalled on a docket / chit, by her Manager, which she then signed. She said that the Manager took a photo of the same which she thinks was sent to Ms. Weng.

The Complainant stated that she did not agree to work from Tuesday to Friday. The Complainant stated that, only once, she worked for the Respondent for five days from Monday to Friday inclusive. The Complainant stated that Chan, her Manager, indicated the change to her hours.

The Complainant outlined that she informed the Respondent in April 2024 that she would contact the WRC. It was put to the Complainant that she received her contract of employment in April 2024. The Complainant said that she did not receive the full copy then.

The Complainant stated that she returned to the Respondent for a second period of employment as she hoped that it would be different the second time.

The Respondent provided written and oral submissions.

Mr. Eddie Kelly:

Mr. Kelly outlined that he is the Respondent’s accountant and that he is also the Respondent’s payroll agent. He said that he provides contracts of employment and payslips for Respondent employees based on information provided by the Respondent. He said that he is independent.

Mr. Kelly referred to his email correspondence with the Complainant dated July 2024. He outlined that he felt that the Complainant did not respond “properly” to his email dated 23 July 2024 and so there was no more correspondence between them. He said that the Complainant’s contract of employment had not been finalised.

Mr. Kelly stated that he calculates each employee’s pay, sets it out in a payslip and sends it to the Respondent. He said that the payslips also provide for public holiday pay and annual leave pay. He stated that he does not know if these payslips are given to the employees. He stated that he sends these payslips out every week and that they “go live” every week. Mr. Kelly stated that he fulfilled his role as regards the preparation of payslips.

Mr. Kelly stated that there are a number of shops where employees are paid in takings from the cash register and that dockets / chits are drawn up which are signed by employees. Mr. Kelly confirmed that the signed dockets / chits in evidence do not relate to the payslips provided in evidence and so cannot be checked for the Complainant’s alleged inaccuracies.

Mr. Kelly stated that he cannot comment on the Complainant not receiving her full pay.

Mr. Kelly accepted that the Complainant did not receive her core terms in writing. He also accepted that the initial contracts of employment that were sent to the Complainant were incorrect as the software was not up-to-date.

Cross-Examination:

Mr. Kelly stated that he could not comment on the dockets / chits signed by the Complainant.

Ms. Yaming Weng:

Ms. Weng outlined that she has owned the business for 18 years and that there are 60 employees. She said that “ToGo” is a discount shop. She said that it can be difficult to work in the shop and so they have to look after their staff. She said that the Respondent values its staff. She said that one employee had worked for the Respondent for 17.5 years. She outlined that she had little by way of evidence to give regarding the matter.

She stated that she found it difficult to deal with the Complainant and to understand matters and so she asked Mr. Kelly to assist her and to deal with the matter on her behalf. 

Ms Weng outlined that she was not in the shop herself and that she has nothing to do with pay, which was a matter for the Manager, Chan. She said that Chan has since left the Respondent’s employment. She said that the Respondent paid the Complainant’s public holiday pay, in accordance with the payslips. She said that employees are paid in cash takings from the cash register after they sign a docket / chit which is then put in the cash register. She said that employees receive payslips by email, “Whatsapp”, or “Wechat”.

Cross-Examination:

Ms. Weng confirmed that she did not have evidence of the Complainant signing for the public holiday pay. She said that they only have four or five dockets / chits available.

Ms. Weng said that she understood that the Complainant was looking for a contract of employment and so she referred the matter to Mr. Kelly.

Preliminary Issue – Cognisable Period:

The Law:

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (the “WRA”) 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 six-month time period can be extended, where “reasonable cause” is demonstrated. To this end, section 41(8) of the WRA provides:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

Caselaw:

The established test for “reasonable cause” for the purpose of granting an extension of time is that set out by the Labour Court in Cementation Skanska v. Carroll, DWT0338 as follows:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

The onus is therefore on the Complainant to identify the reason for the delay and to establish that the reason relied upon amounts to “reasonable cause” for that delay.

Findings and Conclusion:

It was common case that the Complainant had two periods of employment with the Respondent – from August 2022 until June 2023; and from December 2023 until end May 2024. The Complainant filed her WRC Complaint Form on 14 August 2024. The Complainant outlined that she had not brought her complaints sooner as she did not know that she could claim for public holiday pay. She said that she was focussed on having an income and on what she needed. The Respondent submitted that a number of the complaints are out of time.

I have considered the Parties’ submissions. I find that the Complainant has not demonstrated “reasonable cause” to extend the six-month time period. Therefore, I find that the cognisable period for the complaints before the WRC runs from 15 February 2024 until 14 August 2024.

CA00065446-001 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – Public Holiday Entitlements:

The Law:

Full-time employees have immediate entitlement to benefit for public holidays. Pursuant to section 21 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “OWTA”), an employee is entitled to:

“(a) a paid day off on that day,

(b) a paid day off within a month of that day,

(c) an additional day of annual leave,

(d) an additional day’s pay:

Provided that if the day on which the public holiday falls is a day on which the employee would, apart from this subsection, be entitled to a paid day off this subsection shall have effect as if paragraph (a) were omitted therefrom.”

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant outlined that aside from public holiday pay that she received relating to St. Patrick’s Day 2024, she never received pay for her public holiday entitlements. While Mr. Kelly outlined that he provided payslips to the Respondent which accounted for public holiday pay and annual leave pay, he had no further involvement regarding payment. Ms. Weng outlined that the Complainant’s Manager paid the Complainant in takings from the cash register and that the Complainant signed a docket / chit to confirm receipt of payment. No relevant docket / chit, pertaining to the two public holidays outlined below, was provided by way of evidence. The Complainant’s Manager was not available to provide evidence. In the circumstances, I accept the Complainant’s evidence.

I note that the cognisable period for these complaints runs from 15 February 2024 until 14 August 2024. The Complainant’s employment ceased at the end of May 2024. From 15 February 2024 until the end of May 2024, there were three public holidays – 18 March 2024; 1 April 2024; and 6 May 2024. The Complainant stated that she received her public holiday pay for 18 March 2024 only. Having considered all of the evidence and for the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint is well founded. Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA, I order the following:

·             The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €114.30 gross (approximately 9 hours’ remuneration) for the financial loss which the Complainant suffered; and

·             The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €228.60 (one week’s remuneration) for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

This award is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA00065446-002 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Statement in Writing on Terms of Employment:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 3(1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, as amended (the “TEIA”), an employer shall “give or cause to be given”, to the employee, a statement in writing containing specific particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment. This statement in writing must be given to the employee within one month of the commencement of employment.

Findings and Conclusion:

It was common case that the Complainant did not receive any contract of employment until April 2024 – some five months after her second period of employment commenced. Therefore, I note that the Respondent was in breach of section 3(1) of the TE(I)A. In the circumstances, I find this complaint well founded. Pursuant to section 7 of the TE(I)A, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €457.20, which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA00065446-003 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Notification in Writing of Change to Terms of Employment:

The Law:

Section 5 of the TE(I)A requires that when a term of employment changes, an employee should be notified in writing of the change:

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), whenever a change is made or occurs in any of the particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6, the employer shall notify the employee in writing of the nature and date of the change as soon as may be thereafter, but not later than—

(a) the day on which the change takes effect, or

(b) where the change is consequent on the employee being required to work outside the State for a period of more than 1 month, the time of the employee’s departure.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a change occurring in provisions of statutes or instruments made under statute other than a registered employment agreement or employment regulation order, or of any other laws or of any administrative provisions or collective agreements referred to in the statement given under section 3 or 4.”

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant outlined her concerns as to how the contracts of employment, provided by the Respondent, did not accurately reflect the terms of her employment. She further outlined that she engaged with the Respondent in this regard. Mr. Kelly outlined that there had been a “software issue”. He also outlined that he felt that the Complainant did not respond “properly” to his email dated 23 July 2024 and so there was no more correspondence between them. He stated that the Complainant’s contract of employment had not been finalised.

The Complainant also outlined changes made to her verbally agreed terms of employment. These were made by her Manager in or around March 2024. She stated that he first changed her working days and that he then reduced her hours.

Section 5(1) refers to the “particulars of the statement furnished by an employer under section 3, 4 or 6”. As noted (and awarded for) both above and below, accurate and final particulars had not been furnished to the Complainant as per the TE(I)A. Therefore, it follows that the particulars were not changed. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-004 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms in Writing:

The Law:

The TE(I)A sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written form. Section 3(1A) of the TE(I)A obligates an employer to provide employees with certain essential information, or core terms, in writing within five days of commencing employment.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant outlined that she did not receive her core terms in writing. I note that Mr. Kelly accepted that the Complainant had not received her core terms in writing. Consequently, the Respondent was in breach of section 3(1A) of the TE(I)A. In the circumstances, I find this complaint well founded. Pursuant to section 7 of the TE(I)A, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €457.20, which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA00065446-005 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms which Deliberately Contained False or Misleading Information:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 6B(2) of the TE(I)A, “An employer who deliberately provides false or misleading information to an employee, or who is reckless as to whether or not false or misleading information is provided, as part of the statement required by section 3(1A), shall be guilty of an offence.”

Findings and Conclusion:

It was common case that the Complainant did not receive her core terms of employment and this has been addressed (and awarded for) above. If the Complainant did not receive her core terms of employment, it follows that her core terms could not have deliberately contained false or misleading information. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-006 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 – Penalised for Complying With Act or for Making a Complaint:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 27 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, penalisation constitutes “any act or omission by an employer” that affects an employee to their detriment, for inter alia, raising health and safety concerns.  

Findings and Conclusion:

I have considered the evidence in full. The Complainant has not demonstrated how she was penalised by the Respondent for complying with the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 and / or for raising concerns regarding the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005. In the circumstances, I find that this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-007 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Penalised or Threatened with Penalisation for Invoking or Having Given Notice of Intention to Exercise Rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

The Law:

Pursuant to section 6C of the TE(I)A, penalisation constitutes “any act or omission by an employer” that affects an employee to their detriment, for invoking any right under the TE(I)A. 

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant provided detailed evidence regarding her efforts to obtain a correct contract of employment. These efforts included: a letter dated 3 April 2024, “WhatsApp” messages dated May 2024; and emails dated 3 July 2024, 17 July 2024, 22 and 23 July 2024. By way of response, Mr. Kelly indicated in his evidence that he felt that the Complainant did not respond “properly” to his email dated 23 July 2024. He also referred to “softwareissues”.

I have considered all of the evidence. I note that the Complainant was told on 28 May 2024 that she was not to return to work unless she signed her contract of employment, which was inaccurate. She said that she did not sign the contract and so she did not return to work.

I am satisfied that the Complainant fully engaged with the Respondent and that she replied sufficiently to Mr. Kelly’s email dated 23 July 2024. I am also satisfied that the Respondent failed to meaningfully engage with the Complainant who was left without an accurate contract of employment for months, in breach of her rights under the TE(I)A and despite her numerous requests. This left the Complainant in a precarious position and ultimately resulted in the employment ending. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant was penalised for invoking her rights under the TE(I)A in breach of section 6C of the TE(I)A and that this complaint is well founded.

Pursuant to section 7 of the TE(I)A, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately four weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €914.40, which is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

CA00065446-001 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – Public Holiday Entitlements:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is well founded. Pursuant to section 27(3) of the OWTA, I order the following:

·             The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €114.30 gross (approximately 9 hours’ remuneration) for the financial loss which the Complainant suffered; and

·             The Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €228.60 (approximately one week’s remuneration) for the breach of the Complainant’s statutory rights.

CA00065446-002 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Statement in Writing on Terms of Employment:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €457.20.

CA00065446-003 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Notification in Writing of Change to Terms of Employment:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-004 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms in Writing:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately two weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €457.20.

CA00065446-005 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Core Terms which Deliberately Contained False or Misleading Information:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-006 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety at Work Act 2005 – Penalised for Complying With Act or for Making a Complaint:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded.

CA00065446-007 – Complaint Seeking Adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 – Penalised or Threatened with Penalisation for Invoking or Having Given Notice of Intention to Exercise Rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is well founded. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of approximately four weeks’ remuneration, amounting to €914.40.

Total Amount Awarded for all Complaints: €2,171.70

Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005, Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973, Cognisable Period.