Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Beautician

Beauty Salon

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00010586-001

02/04/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00010586-003

02/04/2017

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 27th February 2017 to the 15th March 2017. She alleges that the Respondent failed to pay her the national minimum wage during her employment. She filed a complaint with the WRC on the 2nd April 2017.

At the hearing held on the 1st August 2017, the Complainant advised the adjudicator that she failed to request a written statement from the Respondent in relation to her average hourly rate of pay for any pay referenced period in line with Section 23(1) of the Minimum Wage Act 2000. The Adjudicator was unable to proceed with the hearing on the 1st August 2017 because of the Complainant’s failure to comply with Section 23(1) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. The Adjudicator advised the parties that the hearing would be adjourned to allow the Complainant to write to the Respondent requesting a written statement in relation to her average hourly rate of pay.

A further hearing took place on the 13th March 2018 and the Complainant confirmed that she had written to the Respondent requesting a written statement in relation to her average hourly rate of pay. She submitted a copy of the letter that she sent to the Respondent.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing on the 13 March 2018.

The hearing proceeded.

The Complainant provided evidence that she has obtained ITEC Level 2 in Beauty Specialist Certification on 23rd July 2015.   The certification included the following elements:

·         Level 2 Skincare and Eye Treatments

·         Level 2 Manicure and Pedicure

·         Level 2 Waxing

·         Level 2 Professional Conduct and Business Awareness

·         Level 2 Makeup

·         Level 2 Nail Art

She is also qualified in:

·         Gel Nails

·         Gel Polish

·         Swarovski Crystals Bling Toes

·         IBX Nail System

·         Full Body Spray Tan

The Respondent paid her at the rate of €7.25 per hour. She should have been paid at the rate of €9.25 per hour.   She requested the proper rate of pay from the Respondent on numerous occasions. The Respondent ignored her request.

She worked for a total of 81 hours for the Respondent. She should have been paid at the rate of €9.25 per hour. This amounts to €749.25 (81x €9.25).

She received a total payment of €475.25 in two separate cheque payments (Cheque 1: €292.80 and Cheque 2: €182.45). There is a shortfall in her wages of €274.00.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing on the 13th March 2018. However, the Respondent provided a letter to the Complainant which was submitted at the hearing.

The letter briefly stated that the owner of business agreed to pay the complainant €7.25 per hour for an agreed trial period, as she is still receiving training to bring her up to “floor level standard”. This is the reason that the complainant was not paid the full rate of pay.

It appears that the Respondent is stating that the Complainant did not receive her full rate of pay because she was not fully trained to carry out her role. From the evidence provided by the Complainant, it is evident that she was fully qualified to carry out her role. The qualifications that she submitted at the hearing confirms this.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded. I order the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation in the sum of €274.00 for breaches of Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000. This sum must be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of this decision.

Key Words: