ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057112
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Oliwia Krywdzinska | Axess Zui Ltd |
Representatives | Noel Buckley | Fardeen Abdollah |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00069385-001 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00069466-001 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00069466-002 | 18/02/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069466-003 | 18/02/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/10/25 & 08/01/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The complainant and a witness for the respondent gave their evidence under affirmation. The initial hearing was adjourned when it became apparent that the respondent had not received a copy of the papers regarding the complaints. The complainant was earning 391.50 weekly The evidence was largely agreed between the parties, and no cross examination took place. At the completion of the hearing, I took the time to review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. The respective positions of the parties are noted, and a broad outline of the evidence and cross examination is provided. I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00069385-001 Transfer of Undertakings The complainant submitted that there was no consultation in relation to the Transfer of the employer to a new entity. CA-00069466-001 Terms of Employment The complainant submitted that that she neither signed nor received a contract of employment CA-00069466-002 Payment of Wages The complainant submitted that she was left short payment of an hour per week for the duration of her employment. CA-00069466-003 Organisation of Working Time Act The complainant submitted that she did not receive payment for public holidays during the first six months of her employment. The complainant gave brief evidence in support of her submissions, simply confirming the details as submitted. She noted that the public holidays took place outside of the six-month timeframe set down in the Act. No cross examination took place. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
CA-00069385-001 Transfer of Undertakings The respondent accepted that he did not consult the complainant regarding the transfer of undertakings. CA-00069466-001 Terms of Employment The respondent noted that he did draft a contract of employment but accepted that he may not have given a copy of it to the complainant. CA-00069466-002 Payment of Wages The respondent confirmed that he deducted a hour a week from the complainant’s wages but stated that it referred to her breaktimes and was outlined in her contract of employment. CA-00069466-003 Organisation of Working Time Act The respondent made no submissions in this regard. In his evidence, the witness for the respondent confirmed his submissions. No cross examination took place. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00069385-001 Transfer of Undertakings The respondent accepted that he did not comply with the provisions of the Regulations. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant two weeks wages, i.e. €783.00 in compensation for the contravention which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00069466-001 Terms of Employment The respondent accepted that he did not comply with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant two weeks wages, i.e. €783.00 in compensation for the contravention which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00069466-002 Payment of Wages The respondent accepted that he deducted an hour per week from the complainants’ wages as she was chatting to friends while she worked. He stated that non-payment for breaks was contained in the contract of employment, but he also accepted that he may not have given a copy of the contract to the complainant. Arising from the foregoing, I find that the complaint is well founded and award the complainant compensation equivalent to 21 hours which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. This amounts to €283.50 CA-00069466-003 Organisation of Working Time Act The complainant agreed that the public holidays referred to her first six months. Although the possible extension of timeframes was raised with her, she made no effort to seek an extension of the six-month timeframe outlined in the Act. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
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
CA-00069385-001 Transfer of Undertakings Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant compensation of €783 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00069466-001 Terms of Employment Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant compensation of €783 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00069466-002 Payment of Wages Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant compensation of €283.50 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances. CA-00069466-003 Organisation of Working Time Act Having regard to all the oral and written evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 13-01-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Transfer of undertakings – complaint well founded – award of compensation – Terms and Conditions of Employment – complaint well founded – award of compensation – payment of wages – complaint well founded – award of compensation – organisation of working time – complaint outside of legislative time limit |