Latest news with #employmentrights
The Guardian
7 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Pizza Express and British Airways among firms named for minimum wage failings
Pizza Express, British Airways, and outsourcing firm Capita are among leading businesses named by the government for failing to pay some of their staff the minimum wage. After investigations by HM Revenue and Customs, more than 60,000 low-paid workers have received back pay worth £7.4m after 518 employers failed to meet the legal minimum wage level. German-owned supermarket chain Lidl and Halfords were also on a 'name and shame' list of culprits issued by the Department for Business and Trade. The investigations were conducted between 2015 and 2022, but have only recently been completed and all back-payments agreed, allowing for publication of the full list, a spokesperson for the business department said. Capita, one of the government's biggest contractors, was the worst offender after it failed to pay £1.5m to 5,543 workers. A spokesperson for Capita said 'inadvertent underpayments' were to blame between 2015 and 2021, due to issues including adding 25 minutes a week for call centre staff to log in for their shifts. 'All owed monies were paid immediately, and we are sorry for any impact this had on colleagues and former colleagues at that time,' the company added. 'Our processes and systems were updated to ensure there would be no further issues; we have continued to monitor them carefully, as well as any changes to employment regulations.' Pizza Express failed to pay £760,702 to 8,470 workers – amounting to about £90 on average. A spokesperson for Pizza Express said: 'Once we were made aware of this historic unintentional technicality, which occurred between 2012 and 2018, we swiftly identified who was impacted, apologised and rectified. 'There's nothing more important to us than fairly and accurately paying our team members.' British Airways was named for failing to pay £231,276 to 2,165 workers. The company said an audit in 2017 revealed 'we had accidentally, slightly underpaid some of our cabin crew who joined us between 2014 and 2017 during their first two months of employment. 'We apologised and issued backdated payments several years ago.' A spokesperson for Halfords said: 'The rates that we pay our colleagues are competitive and are at or above the minimum wage. However, in 2021 we found some historical work-related costs that should have been met by us as the employer rather than our colleagues. We moved quickly to identify those impacted in order to make the necessary payments. 'All of the costs involved are now met by the company,' they added. Paul Nowak, TUC general secretary, said ministers needed to vigorously investigate breaches of minimum wage rules. He said: 'Wage theft is bad for workers, families, and the economy. Every pound stolen from a worker's pocket is a pound not spent in local shops, cafes and high streets.' The National Living Wage for workers aged 21 and over rose in April from £11.44 an hour to £12.21 an hour.
Irish Times
28-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Builder awarded €9,000 for unfair dismissal after calling employer a ‘sneaky rat'
A builder who was fired after calling his employer a 'sneaky rat' in a row on site has won €9,000 for unfair dismissal. David Donohoe secured the award under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 on foot of a complaint against SJK Civils Ltd, where he had worked for 13 years until he was sacked in April 2024. Mr Donohoe told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) at a hearing in January that he was sacked on the spot from the €50,000-a-year job when he got into a dispute with his employer about working hours on April 5th last year. He said he was told to start work at 5.30am that day, an hour and a half earlier than his usual 7am. He was told to go to Dublin to collect building materials and bring them to a site, he said. READ MORE When he arrived with the material, he said, he was told he was expected to work until his usual finishing time of 3pm, despite the early start. He declined to do so, after which his employer 'started giving out', he said. 'I called him a sneaky rat, that he had it all planned,' Mr Donohoe said in his evidence. 'He lost it again and said: 'Go home and don't come back in Monday', so I tipped up the material and went home,' Mr Donohoe said. The company's director, who was not identified in the decision, maintained that Mr Donohoe was sent away from the site on April 5th, 2024, but was not dismissed from his employment until April 19th. The director said Mr Donohoe wrote to him looking for a letter for the social welfare office to say he 'was sacked or whatever'. The director then tried to arrange a meeting and called him to a 'capability hearing'. When Mr Donohoe did not show, the director wrote to him again and told him his failure to attend the meeting was 'failure to follow a reasonable management instruction' and that his job was being terminated for 'gross misconduct' during the April 5th incident. Mr Donohoe's solicitor, Frank Taaffe, argued the letters sent by the firm to his client were only 'seeking to mend the respondent's hand' by 'retrospectively applying a dismissal process after the fact of dismissal'. Adjudication officer Anne McElduff wrote that both parties 'contributed to the escalation of matters to the point of dismissal' on April 5th and that it was 'regrettable' there was no attempt to enter into dialogue after that. Ms McElduff's view was that Mr Donohoe should have engaged when there were attempts to launch a formal process. However, she said the company failed to refer him to the correct company policy and set an 'unreasonably short and unfair' deadline to either attend a hearing or have non-attendance be added to the charges against him. The only option for appeal was to the company director, who had been directly involved with the April 5th incident, she added. The respondent company did not discharge the burden of demonstrating Mr Donohoe's dismissal was 'fair, reasonable or proportionate, or that the process was conducted in accordance with fair procedures", she wrote. Mr Donohoe had claimed losses of €15,977 between April and August 2024, at which point he went into business for himself, the adjudicator noted. Ms McElduff decided €9,000 was 'just and equitable in all the circumstances'. She directed SJK Civils to pay Mr Donohoe that sum.
Irish Times
22-05-2025
- Irish Times
Worker has employment claims thrown out because she turned up 30 minutes late to hearing
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has thrown out multiple employment rights claims by a worker at a community probation service because she turned up half an hour late for her hearing before an adjudication officer last month. Maureen McHugh filed complaints against her employer, the Tallaght Probation Project, trading as Deonach, alleging breaches of the Employment Equality Act 1998, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. Ms McHugh earned €2,400 a month for a 19-hour week as a tutor with the west Dublin charity, which operates probation courses for young offenders and adults funded by the State. Her complaints were received by the WRC in January and February 2025 and were listed for hearing at 9.30am on Wednesday 30 April last at Lansdowne House in Dublin 4. READ MORE In decision documents published on Thursday by the WRC, adjudication officer Breiffni O'Neill wrote: '[Ms McHugh] did not attend at the appointed time of 9.30am to give evidence in relation to her complaints.' 'She telephoned the WRC's reception desk at 9.30am to explain that she was delayed by 10 minutes due to traffic. I therefore waited until 9.50am, and as she was still not in attendance at that time, I proceeded with the hearing,' he added. He noted that the employer's representative and two witnesses were present, but as Ms McHugh 'was not present to give evidence', the hearing concluded without any evidence being taken. Ms McHugh arrived to the tribunal building at 10am, Mr O'Neill added. 'I explained to her that as she had not arrived at the appointed time of 9.30am and within a reasonable period afterwards, I had proceeded to hear the matter and it had concluded,' Mr O'Neill added. Mr O'Neill rejected Ms McHugh's complaints as 'not well founded' on the basis that she 'did not attend the hearing to give evidence' or that she had failed to raise an inference of discrimination by failing to present evidence.
Washington Post
21-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge vacates federal rules requiring employers to provide accommodations for abortions
NEW YORK — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down regulations requiring most U.S. employers to provide workers with time off and other accommodations for abortions. The ruling by U.S. District Judge David Joseph of the Western District of Louisiana was a victory for conservative lawmakers and religious groups who decried the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's decision to include abortion among pregnancy-related conditions in regulations on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which passed in December 2022.
Irish Times
20-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Karen's Diner ordered to pay former employee unpaid tips
An ex-employee of theme restaurant Karen's Diner has secured a Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling that she is due hundreds of euro in unpaid tips, in the third such decision against the chain. The international theme restaurant chain, which is marketed an interactive dining experience with 'rude service as part of the performance', opened its doors on O'Connell Street, Dublin in 2024. The worker, Carenin Rosa De Oliveira, quit her job at Karen's Diner after going six months without receiving her share of the money, which she was meant to receive according to her ex-employer's tipping policy, she told the WRC. It seemed to her that the 'non-payment of the monies owed was accumulating with no end in sight', she added. READ MORE The worker's further evidence was that there was 'a general unease among staff concerning the non-distribution of tips and gratuities and service charges'. Her employer 'knew that there was a problem, but kept putting off making any payment', she added. [ Karen's Diner: 'Sit down and shut up!' one waiter shouts as I eat my flavourless burger Opens in new window ] Roberta Urbon, of human resources consultancy Peninsula Business Services, appeared for the restaurant. Her submission was that the business 'concedes there are some monies owed', the tribunal recorded. Adjudication officer Penelope McGrath wrote in her decision that the respondent had failed to provide evidence on how the money owed to Ms Rosa De Oliveira ought to be calculated and therefore had not 'repudiated' the worker's claims. Ms McGrath noted the complainant had told her she 'could not give an exact figure' and had 'erred on the side of modesty' in bringing her claim for that reason. 'I accept that the complainant, who gave very compelling evidence, is only looking for what she says ought to have been paid to her in the course of her employment,' the adjudicator added. She upheld three separate complaints by Ms Rosa de Oliveira under the Payment of Wages Act, awarding her a total of €796 for the breaches. In decisions issued in March and April this year, the restaurant's management was directed to pay over €1,200 to two other staff on foot of similar complaints. It had not appeared before the tribunal in response to either of the previous claims. The decision published on Tuesday in favour of Ms Rosa De Oliveira brings the total sum awarded to former staff of the restaurant to €2,014. Another former employee, Maria Wilkinson, said in evidence to the tribunal that was told the service charge paid by customers would be 'divided between all employees' and that she had expected that to be worth €1,000 to €2,000. However, she said she never got any share of that. The adjudicator in that case concluded that there were 'significant tips' being generated by the restaurant but that 'whatever became of the tips is not clear except to the extent that neither the complainant nor her co-workers received any of them'. He awarded Ms Wilkinson €1,018.40, four weeks' wages, for a 'breach of her rights' under the Payment of Wages Act. Sarah Butler, a member of floor staff who worked at the restaurant from January to March 2024, secured €200 in compensation for the non-payment of cash tips in her final week of employment. Ms Butler had also sought compensation for electronic tips she said were not paid to her going back to the start of last year, but that aspect of her complaint was ruled out of time.
