Case Number: ADJ-00000312. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00000312
Date02 March 2016
PartiesAn Employee v An Employer

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000312

Complaint for Resolution:


Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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



Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/01/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady


In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

This complaint is a claim for the payment of sick pay for the period July 14th to September 18th 2015.

A similar claim has already been heard by the Rights Commissioner service on September 14th 2015 on identical facts in respect of an earlier period July 2nd to July 13th. The Right’s Commissioner found in the complainant’s favour.

The Complainant is employed as a Sales Executive having previously worked with a company which was taken over by the current respondent on a transfer of undertakings in 2003. He says that paid sick leave was part of his conditions at the first company and that this part of his conditions of employment transferred with all other conditions.

However, he submits that while he was off work recuperating in 2015 from a very serious eye operation wages were not paid, despite having been paid to him on two previous occasions since his transfer to the respondent. One of these was for a period of six weeks.

He submitted documentary evidence from a former Managing Director and Financial Controller to the effect that paid sick leave did form part of the conditions at the transferring company.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent says that it does not pay sick pay and that this has never been part of its conditions of employment.

It also says that in the course of the transfer of undertakings it was not identified as one of the conditions of employment of the transferor employees as part of a comprehensive due diligence process at the time of the transfer.

It has also failed to establish from its own records any documentary basis for the claim and noted that the complainant had failed to do...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT