Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Administrative Assistant

An Employer

Representatives

Self-represented 

HR Adviser

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-00070653-002

08/04/2025

The Complainant referred her claim to the Director General of the WRC on 8 April 2025, alleging that she was not compensated for the loss of her annual leave entitlement on cessation of her employment.

The Respondent conceded that the annual leave entitlements had not been paid to the Complainant at that time. It was submitted that the matter has been rectified since.

In her WRC complaint form, the Complainant asserted that her employment was terminated with effect from 7 February 2025. At that time, the Complainant wrote to the Respondent and requested details of her remaining annual leave and public holidays entitlements.

The Complainant submits that there was no communication from the Respondent until 26 March 2025 when she received a letter stating that the Respondent would check if she was owed any monies and that any payment would be made without delay.

Up to the date of the referral of her claim to the WRC, the Complainant has not received any further correspondence from the Respondent, nor has she received a payment in respect of her entitlements.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant confirmed that, subsequent to her raising the matter with the WRC, she received her outstanding entitlements on 22 April 2025, some 74 days after the termination of her employment.

The Complainant disputed that there was any change in the manner in which the Respondent’s payroll was managed, she said that it was always a staff member who managed the wages.

The Respondent submits that at the time of the termination the Complainant’s employment the Respondent had just changed from an outsourced payroll provider to an inhouse solution. Due to teething issues with this change an error was made in the calculation of the Complainant’s final payment. When this matter was brought to the attention of the Respondent, the matter was addressed immediately, and all outstanding payments were made to the Complainant.

It is the Respondent’s position that the error in the final payment has been corrected, and an apology tendered to the Complainant. Under these circumstances the Respondent is of the view that there is no valid case to be answered in relation to this claim.

The law

23.Compensation on cesser of employment

(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 he would have received had he or she been granted that annual leave.

This section provides that an employee is entitled to the payment of any annual leave untaken, during the “relevant period”, at the time of cessation of employment. 

It is clear that, at the time of the termination of the Complainant’s employment, no payment of her accrued entitlements was made to her. In her correspondence of 6 February 2025, the Complainant specifically requested that the matter be addressed. The Respondent did not address the issue for quite some time other than writing to the Complainant on 26 March 2025 that it would look into the matter.

In the absence of any action on part of the Respondent, the Complainant referred her claim to the WRC on 8 April 2025. The Respondent was notified by the WRC of the complaint on 9 April 2025.

It appears that, subsequent to the WRC complaint, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant informing her of her outstanding entitlements. The Complainant received this correspondence on 23 April 2025 and confirmed that she received her entitlements on 22 April 2025. The Complainant immediately informed the WRC of the developments.

In DWT0929 T J & M A Construction Limited v Jaroslaw Wlodarczyk, the Labour Court held as follows.

“It is trite law that the primary purpose of awarding redress is to place a successful claimant in the same position that he or she would have been in had it not been for the infringement of their legal rights. Where compensation is the mode of redress decided upon the Court is required to follow the decision of the ECJ in Von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891. Here it was held that sanctions for breaches of Community rights must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. This means that the compensation awarded must fully compensate the complainant for the economic loss which he or she sustained as a result of the breach of their Community rights. It must also contain an element which reflects the gravity of the infringement and acts as a disincentive against future infractions.”

While I appreciate that the monies due have been paid to the Complainant since, the onus was on the Respondent to calculate and settle any outstanding obligations towards the Complainant at the time of the termination of her employment. It is regrettable that the matter was not attended to at that juncture, leaving the Complainant with little alternative but to pursue her complaint before the WRC. In consequence the Complainant has suffered inconvenience and distress in seeking to resolve this matter over a prolonged period. In my view this is a case in which it is appropriate to award compensation under section 27(3)(c) of the Act.

I declare this complaint to be well founded. I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €1,000 which I consider just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Annual leave –