Case Number: ADJ-00013490. Workplace Relations Commission

• Docket Number: ADJ-00013490
• Date: 09 October 2019
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Parties: A cleaner vs. A cleaning company

Procedure:

On the 5^th March 2018, the complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 23^rd January 2019. The complainant attended the adjudication and was represented by Marius Marosan.

At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it became apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the respondents. I verified that the correspondence in relation to the hearing was sent to the address of the registered company. I waited some time to accommodate a late arrival. As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondents, I proceeded with the adjudication in their absence.

In accordance with section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015following 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.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant outlined that she commenced employment as a cleaner on 1st February 2017. She was not provided with a contract of employment or a statement of the terms of her employment. The complainant said that she worked 32 hours per week. She was paid €10.05 per hour throughout her employment. On 1st December 2017, the rates of pay set out in the Contract Cleaning SEO provided that the rate of pay was €10.40 per hour. The complainant said that her pay did not increase to €10.40 per hour. She incurred a shortfall for the hours she worked from the 1st December 2017 to the 16th February 2018. In respect of the Payment of Wages claim, the complainant said that she is owed €2,126.80 in wages as well as 48 hours for February (€499.20). The complainant said that while she availed of four weeks of annual leave, she was not paid for this period. The complainant outlined that while she did not work on the public holidays, she was not paid for these days. There are four public holidays in the limitation period (the October 2017 public holiday, Christmas Day, St Stephen’s Day and New Year’s Day). The complainant outlined that she resigned on the 16th February 2018 because the respondent stopped paying her. She was not paid for December 2017 and January 2018 as well as the days she worked in February. She continued to work her hours every week but was not paid. She commenced another role in February 2018. She claimed redress of four weeks’ pay.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent did not attend the adjudication, nor deny the complainant’s claim in respect of each of the six complaints.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant referred six complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission. The respondents did not attend to contradict the complainant’s evidence. I note the dicta of the Supreme Court in Glegola v Minister for Social Protection [2018] IESC 65, where the Court held: “The fact that one party does not appear in proceedings should not mean that the opposing party’s contention is accepted by default and without question. There is, in my view, an obligation on any decision-maker to satisfy themselves that an applicant’s case is well founded, particularly where there is an obligation on the part of the State, or another party, not represented in the proceedings to satisfy the award.” I, therefore, enquired into the complainant’s case in respect of each of the six complaints. CA-00017742-001 This is a complaint pursuant to the section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act following the adoption of the Contracting Cleaning Sectoral Employment Order (S.I. 548/2016). The respondent did not pay the increased pay due to the complainant as of the 1st December 2017. The SEO provides protections to employees in respect of pay, but also sick pay, overtime and transfer of undertakings. The respondents did not comply with the requirements of the SEO and I find that the complaint is well-founded. In the circumstances, I award redress of €500. CA-00017742-002 This is a complaint regarding the failure of the respondent to supply the complainant with a statement of her terms of employment. The complainant...