PW294/2015

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

APPEAL OF:                                                                                                            CASE NO.

                                                                                                                                    PW294/2015

Andranik Kazarian – appellant                                                                                           

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

Adam Zsoter – respondent

under

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman:   Ms S. McNally

Members:     Mr D. Hegarty

                    Mr O. Wills

heard this appeal at Cork on 15^th September 2016

Representation:

Appellant:       Mr Paul Derham of Daly Derham Donnelly Solicitors,

                        Florence Buildings, 1A Washington Street West, Cork

Respondent:    No appearance or representation

This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by the employer against the decision of the Rights Commissioner Ref: r-147251-pw-14/DI.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent was properly on notice of the Hearing.

It was the uncontested evidence of the appellant that the respondent came to him on 22 April 2014 looking for a job. The respondent runs a small kiosk where he sells and repairs mobile phones. The respondent is a Hungarian national and at the time his ability to speak English was almost non-existent. The appellant spoke to the respondent’s father and ascertained that the respondent had the necessary skill to repair mobile phones.

Between 28 April and 17 May 2014 the respondent came and observed the appellant work for approximately 5 hours a day. On 18 May the respondent started working. He also worked for 2 days the following week. He was paid for the three days he worked. Unfortunately it did not work out because the respondent’s standard of English did not enable him to talk to customers.

The appellant has explained to the respondent that he would not be paid for the time he spent observing. He would only be paid once he started working.

Determination

The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of the appellant that the respondent was not working for him during the period 29 April to 17 May 2014.

Accordingly the appeal under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 succeeds and the decision of the Rights Commissioner is upset.

Sealed with the Seal of the

Employment Appeals Tribunal

This   ________________________

(Sgd.) ________________________

     (CHAIRMAN)