Poor Practices and Penalisation lead to Award.

The Complainant stated that she was employed as a Sales Assistant in the Respondent’s shop “during two periods between August 2022 and May 2024. She described carrying out typical duties, including operating the till, stocking shelves, and maintaining the shop floor. She asserted that she worked agreed hours of c.18 hours per week and that she complied with all instructions given. She contended that she was paid in cash from the till and only received payslips when she requested them. The Complainant alleged that her payslips inaccurately recorded payment for public holidays which she stated she did not receive (except for St. Patrick’s Day 2024). She further claimed that she did not receive her contract of employment within the statutory timeframe and that multiple inaccurate versions were later provided. She asserted that when she raised concerns regarding public holiday pay and her contract, her working hours were reduced and she was ultimately prevented from returning to work.

The Respondent stated that he generated payslips and contracts based on information provided by the Respondent and that public holiday pay and annual leave pay were included on payslips. He accepted that errors occurred in the contracts issued due to outdated software and that the Complainant’s contract had not been finalised. The business owner stated that she was not directly involved in payroll matters and that staff were paid in cash after signing payment dockets. She maintained that the Complainant was paid in accordance with her payslips and denied penalisation, stating that any changes to hours were operational in nature. The Respondent contended that some complaints were out of time and disputed allegations of non-payment and unfair treatment.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the cognisable period for the complaints ran from 15 February 2024 to 14 August 2024 and declined to extend time as reasonable cause was not established. Within that period, the Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s evidence regarding unpaid public holidays, noting the absence of supporting payment records or testimony from the manager responsible for payments. The complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 was upheld, and compensation was awarded. The Adjudicator further found that the Respondent had breached the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by failing to provide a timely written statement of terms and core terms of employment, awarding further compensation. The Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant had been penalised for invoking her statutory rights and awarded total compensation of €2,171.

Employers should:                

1. Ensure compliance with statutory obligations relating to contracts of employment. Written terms should be provided within the required deadlines and accurately reflect agreed working arrangements. Reliance on informal practices or third-party software does not absolve employers of responsibility.
2. Ensure payroll practices are transparent and verifiable. Employers who pay staff in cash must retain clear records that correspond with payslips and statutory entitlements. In the absence of documentary evidence, adjudicators are likely to prefer employee testimony. Payslips should always reflect actual payments made, and employees should receive them without having to request them.
3. Exercise caution when employees raise statutory concerns. Any reduction in hours, changes to schedules, or conditions following such complaints may be viewed as penalisation unless objectively justified and properly documented

The full case can be found here.