Case Number: ADJ-00000426. Workplace Relations Commission

CourtWorkplace Relations Commission
Docket NumberADJ-00000426
Date01 March 2016
PartiesAn Employee -v- An Employer

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, 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. The claim for Minimum Notice was added at the hearing on the consent of the Employer, thus replacing the claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The Complainant commenced work as a cashier /Administrator for the respondent on 12 March 2012. She worked a forty hour week on €400 gross. She enjoyed her work and worked at the Casino in tandem with her husband. They often swopped shifts to accommodate family life and this was accepted by the respondent. In March 2015, the complainant had cause to query with the Department of Social Protection whether the correct PRSI payment was made while she was on parental leave. She discovered a discrepancy and raises the matter with the respondent.

A NERA investigation occurred around the same period and the employees received contracts of employment. The complainant understood that staff relations between management and staff changed for the worse after this.

On 31 Oct, 2015, the complainant was rostered to work 17.00hrs to Midnight shift but wished to remain home that evening to participate with her children in “ Trick or Treat “. Her husband sought to change her shift, whereby he would undertake the shift in addition to his shift. The usual decision maker, Ms C, was not available and he contacted Mr M, the proprietor, who refused, citing any discretionary treatment of the complainant and her husband had now ceased. The Complainants husband was informed by the respondent that the complainant was to attend for her shift or be replaced.

The complainant contacted the respondent directly and an argument ensued. The complainant contended that a shift swop with her husband had been permitted in the past, but if it was being refused, she would attend for work at 17.00hrs. The complainant understood that the respondent told her to stay at home an in the event that a replacement could not be found, the casino would be closed. The Complainant presented a copy of the casino roster dated 14-20 August 2015, where she pointed to a 13 hr shift permitted for another employee. The Complainant told the hearing that she had spoken with her husband...

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