PW68/2014CO

2^nd CORRECTING ORDER

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                             CASE NO.

Pulse Function F6 Ltd t/a F6Tech Ltd – appellant                                      PW68/2014

V

Edward Moxey – respondent

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Edward Moxey

V

Pulse Function F6 Ltd t/a F6Tech Ltd

Under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr D. MacCarthy SC

Members:       Mr P. Pierce

                        Mr F. Keoghan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 3rd July 2015

Representation:

_______________

Appellant company:               Company Director

Respondent employee:           In person

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appealing the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ref: 136175-pw-13.

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

This order corrects the original order dated 17^th September 2015 and the correcting order of 15^th October 2015 and should be read in conjunction with those orders. The first correcting order contained an amendment to page 2 where the Euro symbol has been replaced by the British Pound symbol. The second correcting order amends the name of the appellant to reflect the original Rights Commissioner Order.

At the hearing the director of the appellant company conceded that the employee was due the amount of £7,707.26GBP in unpaid wages but disputed that the named company was the correct employer. He submitted that the respondent was employed by a UK subsidiary of the appellant company. He was concerned that a judgment would be made against the Irish company.

The respondent’s employment was based in the UK but he submitted his P45 and P60 which named the appellant company. He was also paid by the named company.

On the day of hearing the CEO of the company agreed to pay the employee his outstanding wages within two weeks. However, the employee wrote to the Tribunal after that time had elapsed to convey that this had not happened and the company failed to reply to the Tribunal’s subsequent correspondence.

The company produced no documentary evidence to refute the documents submitted by the employee and given the history of the case the Tribunal is not disposed to accept the word of the company.

Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the company’s appeal and affirms the decision of the Rights Commissioner in the amount of £7,707.26GBP.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)

CORRECTING ORDER

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                             CASE NO.

Pulse Function F6 Tech Limited – appellant                                                PW68/2014

Unit 212 Q House, Furze Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18                      

V

Edward Moxey – respondent

18 Aspen Grove, Aldershot, Hampshire, GU12 4EU, United Kingdom

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Edward Moxey

V

Pulse Function F6 Tech Limited

Under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr D. MacCarthy SC

Members:       Mr P. Pierce

                        Mr F. Keoghan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 3rd July 2015

Representation:

_______________

Appellant company:               Company Director

Respondent employee:           In person

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appealing the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ref: 136175-pw-13.

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

This order corrects the original Order dated 17^th September 2015 and should be read in conjunction with that Order. An amendment has been made on page 2 where the Euro symbol has been replaced by the British Pound symbol.

At the hearing the director of the appellant company conceded that the employee was due the amount of £7,707.26GBP in unpaid wages but disputed that the named company was the correct employer. He submitted that the respondent was employed by a UK subsidiary of the appellant company. He was concerned that a judgment would be made against the Irish company.

The respondent’s employment was based in the UK but he submitted his P45 and P60 which named the appellant company. He was also paid by the named company.

On the day of hearing the CEO of the company agreed to pay the employee his outstanding wages within two weeks. However, the employee wrote to the Tribunal after that time had elapsed to convey that this had not happened and the company failed to reply to the Tribunal’s subsequent correspondence.

The company produced no documentary evidence to refute the documents submitted by the employee and given the history of the case the Tribunal is not disposed to accept the word of the company.

Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the company’s appeal and affirms the decision of the Rights Commissioner in the amount of £7,707.26GBP.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL(S) OF:                                                                                             CASE NO.

Pulse Function F6 Tech Limited – appellant                                                PW68/2014

Unit 212 Q House, Furze Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18                      

V

Edward Moxey – respondent

18 Aspen Grove, Aldershot, Hampshire, GU12 4EU, United Kingdom

against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:

Edward Moxey

V

Pulse Function F6 Tech Limited

Under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:       Mr D. MacCarthy SC

Members:       Mr P. Pierce

                        Mr F. Keoghan

heard this appeal at Dublin on 3rd July 2015

Representation:

_______________

Appellant company:               Company Director

Respondent employee:           In person

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an employer appealing the decision of a Rights Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ref: 136175-pw-13.

The decision of the Tribunal was as follows:-

At the hearing the director of the appellant company conceded that the employee was due the amount of £7,707.26GBP in unpaid wages but disputed that the named company was the correct employer. He submitted that the respondent was employed by a UK subsidiary of the appellant company. He was concerned that a judgment would be made against the Irish company.

The respondent’s employment was based in the UK but he submitted his P45 and P60 which named the appellant company. He was also paid by the named company.

On the day of hearing the CEO of the company agreed to pay the employee his outstanding wages within two weeks. However, the employee wrote to the Tribunal after that time had elapsed to convey that this had not happened and the company failed to reply to the Tribunal’s subsequent correspondence.

The company produced no documentary evidence to refute the documents submitted by the employee and given the history of the case the Tribunal is not disposed to accept the word of the company.

Accordingly the Tribunal dismisses the company’s appeal and affirms the decision of the Rights Commissioner in the amount of €7,707.26GBP.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)