ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009973
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Business Development Executive | A Medical Supplies Company |
Complaint(s):
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-00013044-001 | 09/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a medical supplies company, as a Business Development Executive on 30th January 2017. His monthly salary was €5,000. The Complainant's employment with the Respondent ceased on 17th February 2017. A complaint was lodged by the Complainant with the WRC on 9th August 2017 under the payment of Wages Act. An Adjudication Hearing took place on 10th January 2018 which was adjourned as the parties had settled the case. No payment was forthcoming from the Respondent and the case was relisted for Hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Shortly after the Complainant commenced working with the Respondent it became apparent that the position was not suitable for the Complainant and after consultation with the Respondent's Managing Director it was decided that the Complainant would cease working with the Respondent on 17th February 2017. The Complainant was informed by the Respondent's accountant that he would be paid the wages owed to him, that is €2,304.00, in full within two weeks of his cessation of employment. The Complainant was not paid what was owed to him despite numerous promises that it would be paid. Eventually the Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC and a hearing was held on 10th January 2018 where agreement was reached that full payment was to be made. Following the hearing in January no payment was forthcoming despite numerous requests being made by the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that all correspondence has been directed to the correct address and the Respondent’s non-attendance remains unexplained. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied, on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that he is owed his wages for the period he worked for the Respondent. I am also satisfied that the Respondent has failed to follow the promises it made to the Complainant and this has caused him undue expenses and time and effort in getting this matter resolved. It is a fundamental of any Employment Contract that the Employees remuneration will be paid in full and on time per the agreement reached in the Contractual relationship. I am satisfied that the observations of Ms. Justice Finley Geoghan in the case of Sean Senan Histon -v- Shannon Foynes Port IEHC292 are applicable wherein she stated (in considering Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 :- “It does not appear to me arguable that a failure to pay the Plaintiff any part of his salary is not a deduction from his salary within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act of 1991” On this basis, I am satisfied that the non-payment of the entire salary owed to the Complainant amounts to a deduction within the meaning of the Act. I consider this to have been a deduction Pursuant to section 6(1)(b) of the Payments of Wages Act, as amended, I consider it reasonable in these circumstances to award twice the net amount of the unlawful deduction, i.e. a total of €4,608. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint to be well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €4,608. |
Dated: 19.7.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Deduction, time and effort |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009973
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Patsy O Connell | Alpha Healthcare |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Business Development Executive | A Medical Supplies Company |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00013044-001 | 09/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a medical supplies company, as a Business Development Executive on 30th January 2017. His monthly salary was €5,000. The Complainant's employment with the Respondent ceased on 17th February 2017. A complaint was lodged by the Complainant with the WRC on 9th August 2017 under the payment of Wages Act. An Adjudication Hearing took place on 10th January 2018 which was adjourned as the parties had settled the case. No payment was forthcoming from the Respondent and the case was relisted for Hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Shortly after the Complainant commenced working with the Respondent it became apparent that the position was not suitable for the Complainant and after consultation with the Respondent's Managing Director it was decided that the Complainant would cease working with the Respondent on 17th February 2017. The Complainant was informed by the Respondent's accountant that he would be paid the wages owed to him, that is €2,304.00, in full within two weeks of his cessation of employment. The Complainant was not paid what was owed to him despite numerous promises that it would be paid. Eventually the Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC and a hearing was held on 10th January 2018 where agreement was reached that full payment was to be made. Following the hearing in January no payment was forthcoming despite numerous requests being made by the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that all correspondence has been directed to the correct address and the Respondent’s non-attendance remains unexplained. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied, on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that he is owed his wages for the period he worked for the Respondent. I am also satisfied that the Respondent has failed to follow the promises it made to the Complainant and this has caused him undue expenses and time and effort in getting this matter resolved. It is a fundamental of any Employment Contract that the Employees remuneration will be paid in full and on time per the agreement reached in the Contractual relationship. I am satisfied that the observations of Ms. Justice Finley Geoghan in the case of Sean Senan Histon -v- Shannon Foynes Port IEHC292 are applicable wherein she stated (in considering Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 :- “It does not appear to me arguable that a failure to pay the Plaintiff any part of his salary is not a deduction from his salary within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act of 1991” On this basis, I am satisfied that the non-payment of the entire salary owed to the Complainant amounts to a deduction within the meaning of the Act. I consider this to have been a deduction Pursuant to section 6(1)(b) of the Payments of Wages Act, as amended, I consider it reasonable in these circumstances to award twice the net amount of the unlawful deduction, i.e. a total of €4,608. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint to be well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €4,608. |
Dated: 19.7.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Deduction, time and effort |
ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009973
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Patsy O Connell | Alpha Healthcare |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Business Development Executive | A Medical Supplies Company |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
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-00013044-001 | 09/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/03/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent, a medical supplies company, as a Business Development Executive on 30th January 2017. His monthly salary was €5,000. The Complainant's employment with the Respondent ceased on 17th February 2017. A complaint was lodged by the Complainant with the WRC on 9th August 2017 under the payment of Wages Act. An Adjudication Hearing took place on 10th January 2018 which was adjourned as the parties had settled the case. No payment was forthcoming from the Respondent and the case was relisted for Hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Shortly after the Complainant commenced working with the Respondent it became apparent that the position was not suitable for the Complainant and after consultation with the Respondent's Managing Director it was decided that the Complainant would cease working with the Respondent on 17th February 2017. The Complainant was informed by the Respondent's accountant that he would be paid the wages owed to him, that is €2,304.00, in full within two weeks of his cessation of employment. The Complainant was not paid what was owed to him despite numerous promises that it would be paid. Eventually the Complainant lodged a complaint with the WRC and a hearing was held on 10th January 2018 where agreement was reached that full payment was to be made. Following the hearing in January no payment was forthcoming despite numerous requests being made by the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that all correspondence has been directed to the correct address and the Respondent’s non-attendance remains unexplained. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied, on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant, that he is owed his wages for the period he worked for the Respondent. I am also satisfied that the Respondent has failed to follow the promises it made to the Complainant and this has caused him undue expenses and time and effort in getting this matter resolved. It is a fundamental of any Employment Contract that the Employees remuneration will be paid in full and on time per the agreement reached in the Contractual relationship. I am satisfied that the observations of Ms. Justice Finley Geoghan in the case of Sean Senan Histon -v- Shannon Foynes Port IEHC292 are applicable wherein she stated (in considering Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 :- “It does not appear to me arguable that a failure to pay the Plaintiff any part of his salary is not a deduction from his salary within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act of 1991” On this basis, I am satisfied that the non-payment of the entire salary owed to the Complainant amounts to a deduction within the meaning of the Act. I consider this to have been a deduction Pursuant to section 6(1)(b) of the Payments of Wages Act, as amended, I consider it reasonable in these circumstances to award twice the net amount of the unlawful deduction, i.e. a total of €4,608. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I find the complaint to be well founded. I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €4,608. |
Dated: 19.7.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
Deduction, time and effort |