Employee Wins Compensation for Multiple Breaches of Employment Rights
Background
The Respondent engaged in clothing alterations and repairs. In addition, it provided a curtain-making and soft-furnishing design service. The Complainant was a Bolivian national and she came to Ireland in May 2019 on a student visa. In July 2019, in accordance with her student visa, she looked for a part-time job with the Respondent.
After encountering difficulties with regularising her employment permit status, the Complainant made a number of complaints to the WRC which led to an inspection at the Respondent’s premises and a subsequent enforcement notice.
The Respondent took no action on foot of the enforcement notice prior to the hearing and the Adjudicator informed the Respondent and the Complainant that he would rule on complaints under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 concerning annual leave.
Summary of Complainant’s Case
Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
In addition to her job as an interior designer and seamstress, the Complainant claimed that she had many additional duties that were not set out in her statement of main terms, and that she received no additional pay for filling two roles.
Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991
The Complainant submitted evidence in addition to a WRC inspector’s report of failure by the Respondent to provide payslips and pay wages that were properly due and owing.
Complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
The Complainant submitted evidence that she had not been allocated her full entitlement to statutory annual leave.
Summary of Respondent’s Case
In her evidence at the hearing, the Respondent said that she had documents which show that these complaints are without substance, including records of the hours that the Complainant worked.
She produced a document on her phone which she referred to as a “contravention notice” from the inspection service of the WRC which, she said, showed that she was obliged to pay the Complainant the difference between the wages stated on her contract and the wages she was paid.
The Respondent denied any wrongdoing and told the hearing that she was in fact trying to help the Complainant.
Findings and Conclusions
Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The Adjudicator formed the view that the description of the Complainant’s job as an interior designer failed to explain the reality of her role in the Respondent’s business, which was to look after the customers at the counter on days that the shop had no counter assistant. In considering complaints of this nature, the Labour Court has rejected any defence that such breaches are minimal or technical in nature. The Respondent’s Statement of Main Terms that was provided to the Complainant was not compliant with the 1994 Act as amended by the Transparent and Predictable Working Conditions Regulations 2022.
Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991
The Revenue record submitted by the Complainant showed that, for the 12 months ending on December 31st 2022, she was paid €23,880. The document issued to her by the Respondent as a statement of her terms and conditions of employment showed that her annual salary was €30,000 and the salary shown on her application for an employment permit was also €30,000. The Complainant had a selection of payslips which show that, on 14 weeks between August 11th 2022 and February 4th 2023, she was paid €480.00 per week, instead of €576.92 (€30,000 / 52).
The evidence indicated that, for 51 of the 52 weeks that the Complainant worked for the Respondent, the Complainant worked one extra hour for which she was not paid the wages that were properly payable.
Complaints under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
The evidence showed that the Respondent failed both to pay the Complainant for her outstanding holidays at the termination of her employment and to ensure that the Complainant availed of the holidays to which she was entitled under the working time legislation.
Decision
Complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
The Adjudicator found that this complaint was well founded and directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €1,731.
Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991
The Adjudicator found that this complaint was well founded and directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €7,378.
Complaint under s.19 the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
The Adjudicator found that this complaint was well founded and directed the Respondent to pay the Complainant €1,154 for 10 days’ holidays due on the date of her resignation, plus compensation of the same amount, resulting in total redress €2,308.
The total compensation figure was €11,417.
Recommendations
In this case, the Respondent’s failure to respect a number of fundamental Employee rights ultimately cost the Organisation over €11,000 in avoidable compensation orders.
The decision demonstrates how Organisations expose themselves to substantial employment law risks by adopting informal or ad hoc employment practices.
The Complainant in this case was successful with claims under three different statutes and the decision serves as another reminder to Organisations of how Employees are prepared to assert their rights under the full range of Irish employment laws. It also serves as a reminder to enshrine the fundamentals of employment law into all practices relating to terms and conditions of employment in particular as they relate to contracts of employment, working time, pay and statutory leaves.