Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A 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-00015502-001

01/11/2017

The Complainant commenced employment, as a sales consultant, with the Respondent on 28 August 2017. The Complainant’s first week was spent in the company’s warehouse, where he received training in relation to the company product range.   He commenced his sales role the following week.

At the end of the second week, the Complainant informed the Respondent that he no longer wished to work for the company and offered to work out a weeks’ notice the following week, which would be his third week of employment. The Respondent declined the Complainant’s offer to work notice and requested that all company property, including a vehicle provided, should be returned immediately.

The Complainant stated that he was paid for the first week he worked with the Respondent, as that week coincided with the final week of the monthly pay period.   The Complainant stated that the Respondent confirmed that all payments due to him, on his resignation, would be paid. However, the Complainant stated that to date he has not received any payment.

The Complainant provided evidence, by way of text conversations between him and the Respondent, which clearly demonstrated that the Respondent was acknowledging the monies were due and was indicating payment would be made. This evidence showed that the last contact between the parties took place on 5 October 2017, when the Respondent indicated to the Complainant that if he pursued his complaint to the WRC, it would have the effect of delaying payment of the monies due. The Complainant stated that he received no further contact or correspondence from the Respondent nor did he receive payment of the monies due.

The Complainant detailed that he was owed total of €1,426.00 which consists of one week’s pay at €673.00, one weeks’ notice (which he was willing to work out but the Respondent refused to allow him to do so) of a similar amount and €80.00 in respect of outstanding expenses incurred during the second week of his employment.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. However, by email dated 21 November 2017, to the WRC, the Respondent stated that the matter would be resolved by payment of the monies owed once notification was received that the complaint had been withdrawn.

Based on the evidence presented by the Complainant, I am satisfied that he is due the monies as set out in his complaint. I am further satisfied from the evidence presented and, from his own correspondence to the WRC, that the Respondent accepts that the payments are due.

However, in that correspondence, the Respondent sets down a precondition for the resolution of the matter. The Respondent states that the Complainant must first withdraw his complaint before payment will be made and the matter resolved.

In the context of a complaint to the WRC, it is not for the Respondent to set such conditions for resolution of the matter. I am fully satisfied that the resolution of the Complainant’s complaint lies in the payment of the monies due to him, in line with his entitlement under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, as set out in his complaint. Therefore, resolution of the matter is clearly in the hands of the Respondent.

Based on the evidence adduced and in line with the findings/Conclusions set out above, I find in favour of the Complainant in the sum of €1426.00, which represents payment for monies owed in relation to his employment with the Respondent. This amount is subject to the normal statutory reductions that apply in relation to the payment of wages.

Payment of Wages