ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00010035
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | Retail Pharmacy |
Representatives | Sinead Conefrey Co. Leitrim Citizens Information Service | The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing |
Complaint(s):
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-00013109-001 | 14/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 06/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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).
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant was employed as a pharmacist with the respondent from the 26th.Sept. 2016 until the 7th.January 2017.Following termination of her employment the claimant contacted the respondent on numerous occasions seeking payment for outstanding annual leave and public holidays without a response.On the 4th.May 2017 the claimant received a registered package from the respondent including a P45 , a payslip and a deduction of €400 from outstanding wages. The claimant submitted the delay in making the complaint arose as a result of her being unaware that the respondent had made a deduction from her wages until she received this package on the 4th.May 2017.The claimant had previously lodged complaints with the WRC on the 24th.April 2017 . It was submitted that a dispensing error occurred in the shop on the 25t.November 2016.The claimant sought to contact the respondent about the error on 2 occasions without success and eventually spoke with her by phone on the 1st.Dec. 2016.The claimant submitted that when she spoke about the matter with the respondent she was advised that she would not be required to make good the€400 voucher the respondent proposed to issue to the customer.The customer received the incorrect medication owing to a mislabelling error.The respondent told the claimant she gave the customer a €400 voucher , advised that these things happen and assured the claimant that she would not be expected to defray the costs of the voucher and that she was not responsible.When the deduction was effected in May 2017 ,the claimant wrote to the respondent advising that she had not been provided with any evidence of payment of the voucher.It was submitted that the respondent was in breach of the Act for making this deduction. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. |
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.
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted that the respondent failed to comply with the provisions of Subsection (iv) of Section 5 of the Act.I further note that the claimant’s evidence that she was reassured by the respondent that she would not be held liable for the voucher is uncontested. Additionally , the claimant was not furnished with evidence of payment of the voucher when sought by her from the respondent .For all of the foregoing reasons I find that the complaint is well founded and I require the respondent to pay the claimant €400 compensation within 42 days of the date of this decision. |
Dated: 18th December 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea