Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mengxi  Tang

Mei & Yue Trade Limited

Representatives

Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066944-002

24/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00066944-003

24/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the  European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2006

CA-00066944-004

24/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00066944-005

24/10/2024

The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. The interpreter also affirmed.

There were four complaints in this referral.

Complaint CA-00066944-002.

The complainant says that she was not given a statutory statement of her Terms and Conditions of employment.

 CA-00066944-003.

The complainant submitted that she did not receive a notice payment or compensation on termination of her employment. In her evidence she clarified that she worked a period of paid notice .

Complaint CA-00066944-004

 This complaint related to annual leave had been made under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 – SI No. 507 of 2006)

The complainant had intended this to be submitted under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and due to an error with the drop-down menus on the complaint form submitted under this legislation in error. (The respondent raised no objection to it being heard under the correct statute).

The complainant was unclear as to the number of annual leave or public holidays that remained outstanding.

Complaint CA-00066944-005

While the details provided for this complaint referred to her not having been notified of starting times it also referred to public holiday entitlements, and it was accepted by the parties that these would be addressed under this complaint

The complainant confirmed that she had no issue in relation to her starting times.

It was accepted that the complainant had not been given the statutory statement of her terms of employment.

In relation to the claim for a notice payment the respondent submitted that the complainant had worked and was paid for her statutory period of notice and that no claim therefore arises.

In relation to the claims for annual leave and public holidays the respondent set out details of payments that were made to the complainant following her termination and itemised these separately  by reference to public holidays and annual leave and stated that these fully discharged all outstanding leave due to the complainant.

In relation to the complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, the respondent did not dispute that it had not complied with this legislation. I award the complainant two weeks’ wages in compensation for the breach.

The complainant appeared to believe that she had sone general entitlement to ‘compensation’ under this Act. She had a range of grievances against her former employer, but all of these were outside the scope of the complaints referred to the WRC.

In fact, she confirmed in her evidence that she had worked the notice period and was paid for it.

Therefore, there has been no breach of the Act in that respect.

I address the complaints under CA-66944-004 and 005 together. While the latter appeared from the complaint form to relate to notification of starting time it was accepted with the respondent’s consent that it was intended to refer to public holidays.

The respondent provided details in relation to payments made to the complainant on, and after the termination of her employment in relation to outstanding leave, and which, in addition, included a general payment of some €381.

The complainant accepted that she had received these payments and agreed that this discharged the leave due to her under both headings.

For the purposes of my calculations of redress below the parties agreed that the complainant’s average weekly earnings in the twenty-six weeks before the termination was €336.29.

In summary , I find as follows

Complaint CA-00066944-002 is well founded and I award her two weeks wages in the amount €672.58.

For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00066944-003; 004 and 005 are not well founded. 

Complaint CA-00066944-002 is well founded and I award the complainant two weeks wages in the amount €672.58.

For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00066944-003; 004 and 005 are not well founded. 

Terms of employment, annual leave.