Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Security Officer

A Security Company

Representatives

A Colleague

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-00004021-001

22/04/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00004021-001

22/04/2016

The Complainant was made redundant in May 2015. On the 15^th May 2015 the Complainant had been owed 4 weeks pay for the weeks ending 24^th April to the 15^th May inclusive – a sum of €2,400. These dates were clarified at the hearing. As the Respondent had been “struck off” on the 15^th February 2015 he had not made any claims as he believed that the Company had ceased to exist and any claim would be pointless. However he is now aware that the Revenue Commissioners have moved successfully in the High Court to have the Company reinstated in January 2016. Accordingly he is now (22/04/2016) lodging his claim and is pleading extenuating circumstances, in relation to the time grounds, as outlined.  

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00004021-001

22/04/2016

Following the closure of the Company on the 15^th May 2015 the Respondent made personal cash payments amounting to €900 to the Complainant for the period in question. There was no evidence available for these payments save his personal bona fides that they were made.

Opening Observations:   Informality /Lack of Formal Procedures.

This case was characterised by an extra ordinary degree of informality in the operation of the business. It appeared to run on the basis of personal relationships between the owner/founder, his daughter acting as a type of Operations Manager and individual staff members.

Key Facts / Discussions in regard to the claim.

The major key fact, that was clear, was that the Complainant had received, by his own admission a Redundancy payment, based on an exit date of the 15^th May 2015.

In other words his Redundancy payment was based on his paid service to the exit date. This was not contested.

On this basis I found a claim for non Payment of Wages for the four weeks prior to the Redundancy date somewhat strange. The Redundancy RP50 claim form, while not presented in evidence, was understood by the Adjudicator to be dated in or about the 25^th of June 2015 when colleagues claims had been lodged. It was a claim on the Social Insurance fund – effectively the Employers Insolvency fund.

In this context I found the assertion that “He had no one /no business to claim from” hard to understand. The submission of a new claim when the Revenue had Reinstated the Company, for what seemed to be a procedural Tax Return matter, appeared somewhat opportunistic.

If a claim could be made on the Redundancy Social Insurance fund on the 25^th June 2015 there was no reason I could see, on reflection, why a Payment of Wages Claim could not have been filed on the same or a close by date. The Complainant, while not professionally represented at the Oral hearing, had been advised of his rights by the Citizens Advice Service and was well represented by a former work Colleague, who presented the case very competently and displayed a good knowledge of the relevant Legislation.

In relation to the Payment of Wages claim the Respondent made a very strong plea that he had paid cash lump sums to the employees –effectively under the radar payments that he had personally financed by means of a personal loan from another family member. It was admitted that there was no way of proving that these payment shad been made; leaving aside any considerations as to how they had been reconciled with the PAYE System. One payment was acknowledged by the Complainant –this had been made apparently on or round the 15^th May at a “closure” meeting between the Owner and all the employees.

The Respondent /Owner was, at the time of the hearing, clearly under medical supervision and his remarks appeared sincere.

Accordingly, having reflected on the evidence I came to the following conclusions.

Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00004021-001

For the reasons stated above re CA-00004021-001 I found the claim to be out of time and is accordingly dismissed.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Decision

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00004021-001

Claim dismissed as out of time.