ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00008919
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A TEFL Teacher | A Recruitment Company |
Representatives | No Appearance | No Appearance |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00011734-001 | 02/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 18/10/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, and Section 6 of the payment Of Wages Act, 1991, 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:
This is a complaint on an alleged non payment of wages over a four week period in March to April 2017 . |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a written complaint to the WRC on 2 June 2017. She submitted that she had worked for the Respondent as a Teacher of English as a foreign language from 16 March 2017 to 17 April 2017. She claimed that she had not been paid for a full month of probationary work. The Complainant outlined the background to her employment and recorded her level of dissatisfaction at the way she had been treated. She claimed payment of $850, without reference to euro conversion. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was placed on notice of the complaint on 12 June, 2017. There was no further exchange of documentation and no defence was lodged to the claim. On 17 October, 2017, the Respondent was informed by the WRC that a request to postpone the Hearing on 18 October had been refused and the hearing would proceed. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
| ||
| I am satisfied that both parties were on notice of the hearing. The Complainant submitted a Welsh address and had not amended this in advance of the hearing. The Respondent was based in Dublin as reflected in the documentation surrounding the requested postponement. I allowed a reasonable period before commencing the hearing. Neither party appeared or submitted a reason for their respective non- appearance. As the complainant was not available to advance her case, I have found that the claim must fall for want of prosecution. |
|
Decision:Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. I have decided that the claim has fallen for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 27th November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Alleged Non-Payment of Wages |