Claim No. SCT 334/2020 THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
Claim No. SCT 334/2020
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
BEFORE SCT
JUDGE
BETWEEN
LUYANA
Claimant
and
LUNE DINING
Defendant
| Hearing : | 27 October 2020 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 1 November 2020 |
JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE MAHA ALMEHAIRI
UPONthis Claim being filed on 22 September 2020
AND UPONa hearing having been listed before SCT Judge
AND UPONreading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum ofAED 5,418.05.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum ofAED 367.25.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and
Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 1 November 2020
At: 10am
THE REASONS
The Parties
1. The Claimant is Luyana (the “Claimant”), an individual filing
2. The Defendant is Lune Dining (the “Defendant”), a restaurant registered in the DIFC
Background and the Preceding History
3. The underlying dispute arises over the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to an Employment Contract dated 14 August 2017 (the “Employment Contract”). The Claimant was hired as General Manager with a monthly salary of AED 10,500 consisting of the following:
(a) Basic Allowance AED 8,000; and
(b) Living out Allowance AED 2,500.
4. The Claimant was employed by until 9 April 2020, when the Claimant, along with other employees of the Defendant, received notice that the Defendant restaurant was undergoing a temporary closure, in accordance with guidelines received by the relevant authorities under the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic (the “Pandemic”), and that all employees were to be placed on unpaid leave until further notice.
5. The Claimant submitted her resignation on 30 May 2020, and her last working day was 31 July 2020. The Defendant prepared her final settlement offer which the Claimant did not agree or accept, and she proceeded tofile a claimbefore this Court.
6. On 22 September 2020, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts
(a) Payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave for the period from 9 April 2020 to 31 July 2020;
(b) Payment in lieu of untaken public holidays on 30 and 31 July 2020.
7. On 6 October 2020, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service
8. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Delvin Sumo on 8 August 2020 but were unable to reach a settlement. In line with the rules
9. At the Hearing, the Defendant did not contest the Claimant’s entitlements under the Employment Contract but argued that its business and financial position have suffered as a result of the Pandemic
Discussion
10. This dispute is governed by DIFC Employment Law No. 2 of 2019 (the “DIFC Employment Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract.
11. I shall set out below each of the Claimant’s claims, the Defendant’s defence to each Claim, and accordingly, the Court’s reasoning and finding.
Payment in lieu of untaken annual leave
12. The Claimant submits that she is entitled to annual leave that accrued in the period between 9 April 2020 to 31 July 2020. The Defendant refutes the Claimant’s submissions and argues that the Claimant is not entitled to any leave accrual due to the fact that the Defendant restaurant was closed during an emergency period held as a result of the Pandemic.
13. Article 27 of the DIFC Employment Law which sets out that:
“Vacation Leave
(a) Subject to Article 30, an Employee who has been employed for at least ninety (90) days is entitled to paid Vacation Leave of twenty (20) Work Days in each Vacation Leave Year.
(b) An Employee is entitled to be paid their Daily Wage during Vacation Leave.
(c) An Employee is entitled to carry forward up to five (5) Work Days of accrued but untaken Vacation Leave into the next Vacation Leave Year for a maximum period of twelve (12) months after which any unused Vacation Leave shall expire.
(d) Vacation Leave is exclusive of Public Holidays to which an Employee is entitled.
(e) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by an Employee, and subject to Article 28(1), an Employee cannot receive payment in lieu of Vacation Leave.
(f) Unless otherwise agreed by an Employer, Vacation Leave cannot be converted to Sick Leave if an Employee is sick during any period of Vacation Leave.
Compensation in lieu of Vacation Leave
(1) Where an Employee’s employment is terminated, the Employer shall pay the Employee an amount in lieu of Vacation Leave accrued but not taken up to and including the Termination Date calculated in accordance with Article 28(3).
(2) In the event that the Employee has taken more Vacation Leave than has accrued at the Termination Date, the Employer shall be entitled to deduct an amount calculated in accordance with Article 28(3) from any payments due to the Employee on the Termination Date.
(3) Compensation in lieu of Vacation Leave, or any amount owed by the Employee in respect of excess Vacation Leave taken, shall be calculated using the Employee’s Daily Wage at the Termination Date.”
14. I agree with the Claimant’s submission in so far as the Employment Law permits an employee to accrue leave during this period, and she is entitled to her annual leave. As such, the Claimant is entitled to payment in lieu of 9.18 days of vacation leave for the period from 9 April 2020 to 31 July 2020, as she was an employee of the Defendant until 31 July 2020. As such, I find that the Claimant shall be paid the amount of AED 5,076.94 (AED 10,500 x 12/260 = 484.62 x 9.18 = AED 4,448.81).
15. In addition, the Claimant is claiming 2 days of public holiday on 30 and 31 of July. When cross referencing these days with the Government
Conclusion
16. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 5,418.05.
17. I am of the view that, as the Claimant has been successful in her claims, she is entitled to recover the court
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Deputy Registrar
Date of issue: 1 November 2020
At: 10am