Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Construction Worker

A Construction Company

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-00007197-001

26/09/2016

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 27 August 2015. By his own decision, the Complainant’s employment ceased on 4 March 2016.

In his evidence, the Complainant stated that following the commencement of his employment in August 2015 he experienced significant difficulty in relation to payment of his wages. The Complainant stated initially he was receiving payment intermittently on a cash basis and that as time progressed he was being paid via a combination of cash and cheques. However, the Complainant stated that cheques bounced on a frequent basis, including when he was on his honeymoon in February 2016.

The Complainant stated that he never received a pay slip during his time working for the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent informed him that the reason for the delay in sorting out his pay and in providing him with a payslip was because his (the Complainant’s) tax credits were “in a mess” and the Respondent’s accountant was trying to sort it out. The Respondent disputes that there was any issue with his tax credits.

However, according to the Complainant, when he subsequently spoke with Revenue, after he had left his employment, he was informed that his tax credit situation had been clarified with the Respondent. The Complainant contended that, based on the information supplied by Revenue, the appropriate tax credits were not applied to his wages, but were, instead, retained by the Respondent.

Based on this, the Complainant submitted that he had been underpaid by the Respondent to the sum of €4,266.57 for the time he was in his employment. In addition, the Complainant submitted that he had not received holiday for the period during which he was in the Respondent’s employment. He calculated this sum to be €1,600.00.

The Complainant stated that, after he had left the employment, the Respondent informed him on numerous occasions that he would received the monies owed too him. However, the Complainant stated that he never received any money and that the Respondent broke off all communication once the six month deadline for submission of claims to the WRC had passed. The Complainant contended that this was a deliberate strategy on the Respondent’s behalf, to prevent his bringing a claim.

The Complainant also stated that he had to wait three months for his P45.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing and did not provide any other response/submission.

Firstly, I note that the Complainant sought an extension of the six month time frame for submission of complaints to the WRC. Having carefully considered the evidence submitted at the Hearing by the Complainant, I am fully satisfied that the circumstances warranted an extension being granted.

Proceeding then to the substantive element of the case and based on the uncontested evidence submitted by the Complainant at the Hearing, I am satisfied as to the validity of his claim. Based on the information provide by the Complainant I accept the calculation submitted in the sums of €4,266.57 for unpaid wages and €1,600.00 in respect of unpaid holiday pay, making a total of €5,866.57.

From the evidence submitted by the Complainant, I can only conclude that the Respondent’s attention to the appropriate remuneration of the Respondent in a timely and proper manner, in line with his statutory obligations in this regard, left a lot to be desired.

Based on the findings and conclusion set out above, I find in favour of the Complainant and order that he be paid a sum of €5,866.57, in respect of unpaid wages (€4,266.57) and unpaid holiday pay (€1,600.00)