ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001246
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00001679-001 | 23/12/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/07/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Peter O'Brien
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
THE COMPLAINANT REQUESTED HIS WAGES AS WAS NOT PAID PAST 6 MONTHS. HIS BOSS USED BAD LANGUAGE AND ASSAULTED HIM. HE WAS TOLD PACK HIS BAGS AND GET OUT YOU WILL GET NOTHING AS YOU OWE THE COMPANY MONEY TO PROCESS HIS WORK PERMIT. HE NEVER GOT A REFUND OF HIS VISA FEE AND KEPT ASKING FOR HIS WAGES FOR THE LAST 6 MONTHS AND WAS TOLD BY HIS BOSS THAT HE WOULD CANCEL HIS WORK PERMIT. HE LEFT AS HE WAS NOT PAID AS IS CLAIMING CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The complainant was paid his full wages and was returned his Visa payment and left of his own accord and his job is open for him if he wishes to return.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complainant was employed as Kitchen Staff. He maintained he had two years service but the Respondent produced a contract of employment with a start date of March 18th 2015. Jurisdiction on the basis of service was not challenged by the Respondent. The Complainant denied ever seeing the contract or signing it. The complainant alleged that he had to leave his employment because he had not been paid since he commenced employment. He also alleged he had not received a contract of employment.
At an initial hearing contradictory and unsupported evidence was given by both parties with the complainant stating he was owed the money he gave to support his visa application and that he had never been paid since he commenced employment. He argued he could support this with documentation, including his bank statement, if given a second hearing. The company said they had paid him and returned most of the Visa fee and could prove this with documentation.
The Hearing was adjourned to provide the parties with the opportunity to gather this information. At the resumed Hearing the complainant offered no further supporting evidence. The Respondent supplied a contract of employment and their bank statement which clearly showed payments to the Complainant for wages in the last year and what appears to be a substantial return of his Visa application payment. While the total amount of payments did not equate to the total amount of wages due it was still substantial towards the full wages due, based on a March 2015 start date.. The Complainant said he got this money but that it was to pay suppliers.
At the first hearing the Complainant made a strong case that he could prove he did not get paid with his Bank statements at a second Hearing yet he never offered these documents in evidence when given the opportunity. The Respondent gave a full disclosure of its bank statements showing a number of payments to the Complainant. As the Complainants case was that he was constructively dismissed for total non payment of all wages due , the evidence was substantially the other way and went to disprove his claim.
Overall I prefer the evidence of the Respondent and find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed as alleged and his claim for Unfair dismissal is not well founded.
Dated: 4 November 2016