Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Receptionist

An Employer

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00010818-001

13/04/2017

Ownership of the complainant’s company changed hands in January 2016.

The complainant discovered this by accident and realised that the previous owner had not paid her some wages outstanding to her.

She continued in employment and raised this with the new owner who said that responsibility for the outstanding wages lay with the previous owner.

The total amount outstanding is thirty hours, and in addition she claims one day’s annual leave.

The respondent did not attend the hearings.

There were three hearings scheduled in this case.

At the first, it became obvious that the complainant had named the wrong respondent.

There was an uninterrupted transfer of the business from the person listed as the initial respondent to a new owner.

The name of the business did not change and in every respect it has the appearance of a transfer which falls under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations.

That first hearing was adjourned to allow the new owner to attend a resumed hearing.

As a result of administrative error, while the new owner was put on notice of the hearing the actual confirmation of the hearing details went again to the respondent named by the complainant on the complaint form.

This hearing was again adjourned and a third hearing convened. The respondent did not attend.

The notice of this meeting was slightly defective insofar as it was addressed to the HR Manager and the respondent company does not have a HR Manager.

Nonetheless, I find it difficult to accept that a communication so addressed would not be opened by the business owner as it bore the correct name and address of the business.

Accordingly, I find that the respondent was properly on notice of the hearing but failed to attend.

I also find that any unfulfilled obligations of the business as at December 31st 2016 passed as a matter of law to the new owner who was, and remains liable for any unpaid wages.

Accordingly, the complainant succeeds in her complaint in respect of the unpaid wages which is a matter of some €300.00, being thirty hours at €10 per hour, and a further ten hours in respect of public holidays worked, giving a total of €400.00.

Finally, the onus falls on a complainant to establish the correct legal identity of a respondent before submitting a complaint to the WRC. Failure to do so, may adversely affect the consideration of their case, or as in this case result in unnecessary delay.

I uphold CA-00010818-001 and award the complainant €400.00.