ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009833
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Supervisor | Distribution Centre |
Complaint:
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-00012075-001 | 22/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/11/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and 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:
The Complainant was employed with the Respondent Company from 15th January 2010 until the employment terminated in September 2017. The Complainant was paid €10.92 an hour and he worked 40 hours a week. The Complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 22nd June 2016 claiming the Respondent had breached the Payment of Wages Act on 1st November 2016 in relation to the cessation of a Bonus paid to him. This was a Masters Supervisor Program initiated by the Respondent Company and which program the Complainant was invited to participate in by letter dated 2nd February 2016 during which period he would be paid €12.00 an hour. The letter informing him of the Program also states as follows – “You will be informed in advance of any changes”. The evidence was that the Program concluded mid-november 2016 and both parties confirmed that the Complainant had not been informed in advance as per the letter dated 2nd February 2016. The Complainant was then paid €10.92 an hour. |
PRELIMINARY ISSUE – TIME LIMITS
Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides as follows – “An Adjudication Officer shall not entertain a complainant or dispute….referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the com plaint relates”. However, Section 41(8) does allow for an extension of time due to “reasonable cause”. This Complaint was received at the WRC on 22nd June 2017, therefore the period covered by this complaint is from 23rd December 2016. The complainant relates to the period 1st November 2016 when the payment ceased. At the Hearing the Complainant stated he was ignorant of his rights. However, the Complainant did write to the Respondent raising a grievance on 6th January 2017 in relation to the deduction. I note in this email that the Complainant concludes as follows – “I do not wish to have any conflict with the Company but, if the Company does not agree with my interpretation, I will ask the WRC to rule on the issue”. The Company responded by letter dated 25th January 2017 rejecting his grievance. However, the Complainant did not refer the complaint to the WRC until 22nd June 2017. The Complainant was unable to explain the delay. Therefore Section 41(8) cannot be applied to this complaint.
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
On the basis of my decision set out above in relation to the Time Limit issue I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as it does not comply with Section 41 (6) or (8) of the Act |
Dated: 18th January 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Rosaleen Glackin
Key Words:
Time Limits Section 41 (6) and (8) – not jurisdiction. |