FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 27(1), NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 2000 PARTIES : ABCOM SECURITY LTD - AND - MUHAMMAD EJAZ DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Decision no: r-140120-mw-13/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the Worker of Rights Commissioner's Decision no: r-140120-mw13/JT. The Rights Commissioner, in his Decision of the 7th May 2014 found that the Worker's claim was not well founded. On the 13th June 2014, the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 27(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th July 2014. The following is the Court's Determination:
DETERMINATION:
This is a claim by Muhammad Ejaz (the Claimant) against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in his claim against his former employer, Abcom Security Limited (the Respondent) under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000.
The Respondent did not appear at the hearing of the appeal and was not represented.
The Claimant worked for the Respondent in his capacity as a security guard. There is some uncertainty as to the duration of his employment. In a letter to the Respondent dated 21stOctober 2013 the Claimant contended that he was employed between 6thJuly 2013 and 29thJuly 2013 (a period of three weeks). He now contends that he worked a further week. He claims that he was paid a rate of €8.50 per hour rather than the national minimum wage of €8.65 per hour.
In the course of the hearing of the appeal it emerged that the Claimant had not requested a statement of his average hourly rate for a pay reference period in accordance with s.23 of the Act. Section 24(2)(a) of the Act provides that a dispute cannot be referred to a Rights Commissioner under the Act unless an employee has received a statement pursuant to s.23, or having requested such a statement the employer has failed to provide the statement.
The request for a statement under s.23 is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of a Rights Commissioner and consequently to the jurisdiction of this Court. This matter was not considered by the Rights Commissioner. Nevertheless the Court cannot embark upon hearing unless it satisfied that it has jurisdiction to do so. In this case it would appear that the claim was not properly before the Rights Commissioner because the condition precedent was not met. In those circumstances the claim is not properly before the Court and it must decline jurisdiction to determine the appeal.
The Court so determines
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
12th August, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.