Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An assistant in an entertainment and children’s play centre

An entertainment and children’s play centre

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-00018272-001

03/04/2018

Having worked for one day for the respondent company on November 18th 2017, the complainant was not paid any wages and this is the basis of his complaint submitted on March 3rd 2018.

The complainant said that he worked as a part-time shop assistant in the city centre and he was looking for a job nearer his home in Celbridge. As the entertainment centre was near his home, he sent in a CV in July 2017. He said he got a call from a supervisor on November 18th 2011 and he was asked to come in that day for a trial. He attended the centre at 10.30am and he worked until 7.30pm, with half an hour break at lunchtime. At the end of the day, he was offered a job.

When he informed the company he worked for that he intended to resign, they asked him to reconsider and offered him a job in a branch of their shop in Liffey Valley Shopping Centre. He then decided not to take the job with the entertainment centre. He said that he called back in to the centre and spoke to the supervisor and told her that he wouldn’t take up the job offer. He said that the supervisor said that he would be paid in cash for the day that he worked on November 18th.   He was not informed what payment was due, but he calculated that he was entitled to at least the minimum wage, which at the time was €9.25 per hour. On this basis, he is owed €78.62 (9.25 x 8.5 hours).

The complainant called to the centre again a few days later and the supervisor called a manager to speak to him. The complainant explained that he had worked for eight and a half hours and that he was looking for his pay. He said that the manager was aggressive and stood over him in a threatening manner.   The complainant’s mother said that she spoke to the manager and he asked her for her number and said he would phone her. When he didn’t contact the complainant or his mother, and when he wasn’t paid, they went back to the entertainment centre a few days later. On this occasion, they spoke with the owner.   They said that the owner was rude shouted at them in a public area of the centre and said that he didn’t pay people for “trial days.” When the complainant said that he intended bringing a complaint to the WRC, the owner said that he “couldn’t care less about the WRC” and he ran off.

The respondent did not attend and did not send a representative to give evidence at the hearing.

I have to rely on the evidence of the complainant in this case, and I found him a credible witness.   He worked for one day on November 18th2017, on a trial basis for the respondent, at the end of which, he was offered a job. He declined the offer.

If he had accepted the offer of work, it seems reasonable to conclude that he would have been paid.   He is entitled to wages for the day that he worked for the respondent, regardless of the fact that he didn’t take up their offer of employment.

I have decided that this complaint under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is upheld and the respondent is to pay the complainant €78.62 in respect of one day’s pay for the hours he worked on November 18th2017.

Non-payment of wages