Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) - RECENT Decisions & judgements
ADJ- 00016403
Complainant awarded €980.00 for Unfair Dismissal from an elite Sports Club
The Complainant was a General Manager of an elite-level sports club. His employment ended when the club was taken over. The fact of dismissal is disputed. Both parties disagreed as to the monies the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant. This dispute relates to income from a car park adjacent to the club’s ground.
The Complainant outlined that he started working in a full time role for the Respondent on the 21st December 2014 as General Manager/Club Secretary of an elite-level sporting team. The Complainant’s pay was €120 per week. In April/May 2015, the Complainant relocated to live close to the Respondent ground and the Respondent agreed to pay his accommodation costs. From the end of 2016, the Complainant’s remuneration was €120 per week and the accommodation cost of €1,100 per month.
During the last week of July 2018, the Complainant said he received a phone call from the new owner of the Respondent, who said he was taking over. There was a fixture the following day and that weekend, the Complainant compiled information for the new owner. On Tuesday, 31st July 2018, he met the owner, who said that the Complainant did not fit into the plans for the club. The Complainant said that he had no pre-warning and requested for this decision in writing. The Complainant emailed the following day with his version of what happened.
The Complainant outlined that he was dismissed on the spot, without notice. In respect of the letter dated the 17th April 2015, the Complainant outlined that this set out the terms of his employment, including the commitment to pay for his accommodation. He said that this was printed on the headed paper then available.
In questioning, it was put to the Complainant that the letter of the 17th April 2015 did not use contemporaneous headed paper and also that this letter was on different headed paper to other correspondence. It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent did not accept the veracity of the letter produced in evidence. It was also put to the Complainant that, in 2015, the Respondent had a link with a different underage club to the one cited in the headed paper. In reply, the Complainant said that he could not explain why the letters of the 7th and 15th April were on different headed paper.
It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent had never paid the accommodation cost and that it was never recorded on the Respondent accounts; he replied that the accommodation monies were paid from the income accruing from an adjacent car park facility and the Respondent had not wanted to be “stuck with the cost of BIK”. The Complainant had raised the accommodation payment with the new owner in their conversation. The Complainant said that any income above the rent cost was remitted to the Respondent. He stated that he was paid €120 by direct debit on a weekly basis.
The Complainant outlined that he had paid the deposit for the rented dwelling and the first two month’s rent. He last paid rent in July 2018, just before his dismissal. He left the apartment in September 2018 and lost the deposit.
The Complainant said that after his employment came to an end, he looked for work but was not now working.
The Respondent denied that there was a dismissal and submitted that the Complainant had agreed to end his employment. The new owner outlined that he has been involved in sport for years. He was asked to get involved to save the Respondent. He acquired a shareholding and carried out due diligence. He met the Complainant, who said that if the new owner did not want him “here”, the Complainant would leave. This was an amicable, evolving conversation and the new owner replied that the Complainant was probably not in his plans. The new owner said that the Complainant pointed to the correspondence regarding his accommodation costs.
The new owner outlined that they had mutually agreed that the Complainant’s employment would end. He emailed the Complainant that evening to confirm this. The following emails show a divergence between them. The new owner said that he emailed many times to offer to return the Complainant’s possessions. The Respondent paid the Complainant two weeks of notice pay. The reference to matters being “tied up” referred to paying notice pay and the return of the vehicles. It was unclear what was going to happen with the accommodation.
The Respondent outlined that the General Manager role remained vacant and this work is now done voluntarily. The accommodation expenditure had not appeared on the Respondent accounts and the income from the neighbouring car park facility had also not been recorded in the accounts. The Respondent outlined that it now received a higher income from the car park facility. It had confirmation from the other directors that the Respondent had not authorised the payment of accommodation costs.
It was found there was a conflict in evidence about what was said between the Complainant and the Club Chairman on the 31st July 2018. They expressed their contrasting accounts of the conversation in the emails that followed. The Complainant’s account was that he was dismissed on the spot while the new owner said that the Complainant agreed to end his employment.
A resignation is a unilateral act which, if expressed in unambiguous and unconditional terms, brings a contract of employment to an end. Given that this was a conversation that “evolved”, it was found that anything said could not amount to an unambiguous and unconditional unilateral act to end the employment relationship. It follows that the Respondent dismissed the Complainant.
In assessing the fairness of the dismissal, it was noted that the Complainant’s role is now carried out by volunteers and there was no process at all to categorise the dismissal as a redundancy. It was noted that no other substantive reason was offered for the dismissal and the dismissal was deemed unfair.
The most questioned element of this case was how much the Complainant earned per week, in particular whether his rent formed part of his pay. The Complainant had presented insufficient evidence that the accommodation cost was part of his wages, or that the non-payment of these monies is a loss arising from his dismissal. It was noted that the Complainant’s pay was €120 per week, while the accommodation cost was about twice this amount. One would expect much more documentation regarding a change which, in effect, tripled the Complainant’s pay. The adjudicator assessed redress according to the Complainant’s wages of €120 per week.
The Complainant’s employment commenced on the 21st December 2014 and ended on the 31st July 2018. The Complainant did not provide much information about the steps he took to find alternative employment. Taking the circumstances of the case into account, It was heard that the complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act was well founded and the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant redress of €980.00.
ADJ-00017390
Respondent ordered to pay €250 compensation to Complainant due to non-provision of Public Holiday entitlements
The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 9th October 2018 and relates to alleged breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 in respect of Public Holiday entitlements.
The Complainant stated that he was not provided with the correct Public Holiday entitlements in respect of 2016 and 2017. The Complainant’s representative stated that although the Respondent has rectified the matter in respect of Public Holiday entitlements, it is not satisfied that this issue occurred in error. The Complainant’s representative outlined that for this to have happened, the Respondent would have been in breach of the legislation in terms of its record keeping. The Complainant’s representative stated that this is not an isolated incident and is also happening across several of the Respondent’s other stores. The Complainant’s representative is seeking compensation on behalf of the Complainant.
The Respondent accepted that there were a number of Employees in one of its stores that had not received the correct Public Holiday entitlements for the years 2016 and 2017. The Respondent stated that it was not done deliberately and outlined that it occurred due to errors of a member of management at that location who is no longer employed there.
The Respondent stated that in relation to this specific complaint, the reckonable period of the complaint is 6 months from the date the complaint was submitted. The Respondent stated that once the error came to its attention, it rectified the situation for the two years in question and all workers were satisfied that they had received their correct entitlements.
The Respondent submits that in those circumstances the payment of compensation is not appropriate.
The six-month cognisable period of a complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission is provided for in Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 which states as follows:
“(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”
Section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows:
A decision of an adjudication officer under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,
(c) require the employer to pay to the Employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the Employee’s employment.
It was noted that this was an unfortunate error on behalf of the Respondent and was in no way done to deliberately deprive the Complainant of his Public Holiday entitlements. It was also noted that the issue was not expected to arise again in any other store of the Respondent.
While the Respondent rectified the situation in 2018 and went beyond the six-month cognisable period of a complaint, it was found that the Complainant should receive some compensation for not receiving Public Holiday entitlements for the two years in question.
The complaint was declared well founded and the Respondent directed to pay the Complainant €250 in compensation for the infringement of his rights under the legislation.
Complainant awarded €980.00 for Unfair Dismissal from an elite Sports Club
The Complainant was a General Manager of an elite-level sports club. His employment ended when the club was taken over. The fact of dismissal is disputed. Both parties disagreed as to the monies the Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant. This dispute relates to income from a car park adjacent to the club’s ground.
The Complainant outlined that he started working in a full time role for the Respondent on the 21st December 2014 as General Manager/Club Secretary of an elite-level sporting team. The Complainant’s pay was €120 per week. In April/May 2015, the Complainant relocated to live close to the Respondent ground and the Respondent agreed to pay his accommodation costs. From the end of 2016, the Complainant’s remuneration was €120 per week and the accommodation cost of €1,100 per month.
During the last week of July 2018, the Complainant said he received a phone call from the new owner of the Respondent, who said he was taking over. There was a fixture the following day and that weekend, the Complainant compiled information for the new owner. On Tuesday, 31st July 2018, he met the owner, who said that the Complainant did not fit into the plans for the club. The Complainant said that he had no pre-warning and requested for this decision in writing. The Complainant emailed the following day with his version of what happened.
The Complainant outlined that he was dismissed on the spot, without notice. In respect of the letter dated the 17th April 2015, the Complainant outlined that this set out the terms of his employment, including the commitment to pay for his accommodation. He said that this was printed on the headed paper then available.
In questioning, it was put to the Complainant that the letter of the 17th April 2015 did not use contemporaneous headed paper and also that this letter was on different headed paper to other correspondence. It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent did not accept the veracity of the letter produced in evidence. It was also put to the Complainant that, in 2015, the Respondent had a link with a different underage club to the one cited in the headed paper. In reply, the Complainant said that he could not explain why the letters of the 7th and 15th April were on different headed paper.
It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent had never paid the accommodation cost and that it was never recorded on the Respondent accounts; he replied that the accommodation monies were paid from the income accruing from an adjacent car park facility and the Respondent had not wanted to be “stuck with the cost of BIK”. The Complainant had raised the accommodation payment with the new owner in their conversation. The Complainant said that any income above the rent cost was remitted to the Respondent. He stated that he was paid €120 by direct debit on a weekly basis.
The Complainant outlined that he had paid the deposit for the rented dwelling and the first two month’s rent. He last paid rent in July 2018, just before his dismissal. He left the apartment in September 2018 and lost the deposit.
The Complainant said that after his employment came to an end, he looked for work but was not now working.
The Respondent denied that there was a dismissal and submitted that the Complainant had agreed to end his employment. The new owner outlined that he has been involved in sport for years. He was asked to get involved to save the Respondent. He acquired a shareholding and carried out due diligence. He met the Complainant, who said that if the new owner did not want him “here”, the Complainant would leave. This was an amicable, evolving conversation and the new owner replied that the Complainant was probably not in his plans. The new owner said that the Complainant pointed to the correspondence regarding his accommodation costs.
The new owner outlined that they had mutually agreed that the Complainant’s employment would end. He emailed the Complainant that evening to confirm this. The following emails show a divergence between them. The new owner said that he emailed many times to offer to return the Complainant’s possessions. The Respondent paid the Complainant two weeks of notice pay. The reference to matters being “tied up” referred to paying notice pay and the return of the vehicles. It was unclear what was going to happen with the accommodation.
The Respondent outlined that the General Manager role remained vacant and this work is now done voluntarily. The accommodation expenditure had not appeared on the Respondent accounts and the income from the neighbouring car park facility had also not been recorded in the accounts. The Respondent outlined that it now received a higher income from the car park facility. It had confirmation from the other directors that the Respondent had not authorised the payment of accommodation costs.
It was found there was a conflict in evidence about what was said between the Complainant and the Club Chairman on the 31st July 2018. They expressed their contrasting accounts of the conversation in the emails that followed. The Complainant’s account was that he was dismissed on the spot while the new owner said that the Complainant agreed to end his employment.
A resignation is a unilateral act which, if expressed in unambiguous and unconditional terms, brings a contract of employment to an end. Given that this was a conversation that “evolved”, it was found that anything said could not amount to an unambiguous and unconditional unilateral act to end the employment relationship. It follows that the Respondent dismissed the Complainant.
In assessing the fairness of the dismissal, it was noted that the Complainant’s role is now carried out by volunteers and there was no process at all to categorise the dismissal as a redundancy. It was noted that no other substantive reason was offered for the dismissal and the dismissal was deemed unfair.
The most questioned element of this case was how much the Complainant earned per week, in particular whether his rent formed part of his pay. The Complainant had presented insufficient evidence that the accommodation cost was part of his wages, or that the non-payment of these monies is a loss arising from his dismissal. It was noted that the Complainant’s pay was €120 per week, while the accommodation cost was about twice this amount. One would expect much more documentation regarding a change which, in effect, tripled the Complainant’s pay. The adjudicator assessed redress according to the Complainant’s wages of €120 per week.
The Complainant’s employment commenced on the 21st December 2014 and ended on the 31st July 2018. The Complainant did not provide much information about the steps he took to find alternative employment. Taking the circumstances of the case into account, It was heard that the complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act was well founded and the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant redress of €980.00.
ADJ-00017390
Respondent ordered to pay €250 compensation to Complainant due to non-provision of Public Holiday entitlements
The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 9th October 2018 and relates to alleged breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 in respect of Public Holiday entitlements.
The Complainant stated that he was not provided with the correct Public Holiday entitlements in respect of 2016 and 2017. The Complainant’s representative stated that although the Respondent has rectified the matter in respect of Public Holiday entitlements, it is not satisfied that this issue occurred in error. The Complainant’s representative outlined that for this to have happened, the Respondent would have been in breach of the legislation in terms of its record keeping. The Complainant’s representative stated that this is not an isolated incident and is also happening across several of the Respondent’s other stores. The Complainant’s representative is seeking compensation on behalf of the Complainant.
The Respondent accepted that there were a number of Employees in one of its stores that had not received the correct Public Holiday entitlements for the years 2016 and 2017. The Respondent stated that it was not done deliberately and outlined that it occurred due to errors of a member of management at that location who is no longer employed there.
The Respondent stated that in relation to this specific complaint, the reckonable period of the complaint is 6 months from the date the complaint was submitted. The Respondent stated that once the error came to its attention, it rectified the situation for the two years in question and all workers were satisfied that they had received their correct entitlements.
The Respondent submits that in those circumstances the payment of compensation is not appropriate.
The six-month cognisable period of a complaint submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission is provided for in Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 which states as follows:
“(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”
Section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 provides as follows:
A decision of an adjudication officer under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of a relevant provision shall do one or more of the following, namely:
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(b) require the employer to comply with the relevant provision,
(c) require the employer to pay to the Employee compensation of such amount (if any) as is just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the Employee’s employment.
It was noted that this was an unfortunate error on behalf of the Respondent and was in no way done to deliberately deprive the Complainant of his Public Holiday entitlements. It was also noted that the issue was not expected to arise again in any other store of the Respondent.
While the Respondent rectified the situation in 2018 and went beyond the six-month cognisable period of a complaint, it was found that the Complainant should receive some compensation for not receiving Public Holiday entitlements for the two years in question.
The complaint was declared well founded and the Respondent directed to pay the Complainant €250 in compensation for the infringement of his rights under the legislation.
Note on WRC:
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st October 2015 is the most radical restructuring of employment legislation over the last 30 years. Organisations are encouraged to understand all facets of the WRC, how it now operates and what to expect when required to defend a claim at the third parties.
The establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission has resulted in the combined functions of the Labour Relations Commission, Rights Commissioner Service, the Equality Tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA).
In addition to this the Labour Court has been reconfigured in order to hear appeals.
The strategic aims of the new Workplace Relations Commission include an independent, effective and impartial workplace relations service, a more workable means of redress within a reasonable timeframe and an overall reduction in costs. The new Workplace Relations Commission is also anticipated to be more centralised, in terms of maintaining a database of case information, the end result bring a better service for both Employers and Employees and a much more streamlined, simplified process.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our HR & Employment Law Support Services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Advice on all Employment Law, Industrial Relations and HR queries or issues
- Review, Development and Implementation of Contracts of Employment and Employee Policies and Procedures
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment, Conducting Disciplinary Meetings
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice
- Organisational Management or Change Management Initiatives – including review / development of Performance Appraisal / Management Systems and Organisational Development
www.adarehrm.ie
