ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Digital Marketing & Sales Executive v Digital Marketing Company
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00005250
Complaint for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00007299-001 | 01/10/2016 |
Venue: WRC; Lansdowne House, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/01/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background
The Complainant was employed as a Digital Marketing & Sales Executive from 20th June 2016 to 22nd July 2016. She was paid €2,292 gross per month. She has claimed that she is owed July salary to 22nd July, minimum notice and also she did not get payslips and the P45 cessation date is incorrect.
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
1)Salary for July 2016 She stated that she worked to 22nd July but was not pad for July. She has claimed €1,285 net. The Respondent put a cessation date of 30th June on the P45 however it was confirmed in writing by the Respondent (BB) that she had worked towards the end of July. 2) Minimum Notice She stated that her contract of employment provides for a month’s notice either by the employer or the employee. She has claimed €1,928. 3) Payslips She complained that she did not receive payslips. 4) Incorrect cessation date on P45 The P45 stated 30th June 2016 instead of the correct date of 22nd July 2016. |
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented.
Findings
I note correspondence on file advising the Respondent of the time, date and venue of this hearing.
Based on uncontested evidence I find as follows:
1) Salary for July 2016
I note the Respondent’s correspondence confirming that she worked to the latter end of July 2016. Therefore I ignore the cessation date on the P45 and accept the Complainant’s evidence that she worked to 22nd July and was not paid for any work done in July.
I find that she is owed €1,285 net as claimed.
2) Minimum Notice
I note that the contract of employment states, “You are entitled to receive one month’s written notice of termination. You will also be required to give one month’s written notice of termination”.
I find that she offered to work notice but was asked to leave and no payment in lieu of notice was given.
Therefore I find that she is entitled to one month’s salary in lieu of notice amounting to €1,928 net.
3) Payslips
Sec 6 (1) of this Act states, “an employee may present a complaint to a rights commissioner that his employer has contravened section 5…
Therefore I have only jurisdiction to deal with complaints under Sec 5.
As this complaint is for a breach of Sec 4 I find that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint.
4) Incorrect date of cessation on P45.
I find that I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this complaint.
Sec 6(2) of this Act states, “the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such an amount … not exceeding (a) the net amount of wages”
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I have decided that the Respondent has contravened Sec 5 of the Payment of Wages Act.
I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant (€1,285 + €1,928) = €3,213 within six weeks of the date below.
Eugene Hanly
Adjudication Officer
Dated: 24th April 2017