EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL(S) OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE appellant PW288/2012
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
EMPLOYER respondent
And
EMPLOYEE appellant
under
PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1991
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Ms P. McGrath B.L.
Members: Mr M. Noone
Mr G. Whyte
heard this appeal at Dublin on 30th September 2013
Representation:
_____________
Appellant(s): The appellant in person
Respondent(s): No attendance by or on behalf of the respondent
The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This appeal came before the Employment Appeals Tribunal by way of an employer (the appellant) appealing against the decision of the Rights Commissioner dated 16 April 2012 reference number r-1-02867-pw-11/JC. For clarification purposes the appellant will be referred to as the employer and the respondent as the employee.
Employer’s Evidence
The employer outlined to the Tribunal that he was in business for twenty two years. Initially he was a landlord and the employee was employed in the college. The employer and the employee established a business and they signed a contract on the 22 December 2009. The employee told the employer he would get his investment back in less than a year. The employee agreed to invest between €10,000.00 and €40,000.00 in the company and to raise money in India. This did not happen. The employer spent €140,000.00 to establish the business. The employer told him that students would be coming to the college but this never happened.
In June 2010 the employee’s wife was ill and the employee returned to India. The employer contacted the employee while he was in India and he had received no applications from students. The employee gave the employer his travel bill which he paid.
He paid the employee €5,000.00 a month and paid his PAYE/PRSI. The employer told the employee that he could not continue and a row ensued. The employee told him that he would hand over the business to him. On the 21 July 2010 the employee resigned and the employer paid him all monies that were due to him. No work was done and he told the employee that he would have to furnish a report. A deal was signed with lecturers and he never received the report from the employee. As far as he is aware the employee is now in India.
Determination
On the unchallenged evidence of the respondent the Tribunal upsets the decision of the Rights Commissioner and the appellant (employer’s) appeal succeeds under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)