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-00012984-001

05/08/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00012984-002

05/08/2017

The Complainant worked with the company from 21st June 2016 to 15th March 2017 as an appliance sales person. His employment was terminated on 8th March 2017.

The Complainant says he is due agreed commission of 5,611 euro based on sales of approximately 20,000 euro per week which was due to be paid while in employment. The Complainant negotiated commission payments from the Respondent prior to joining and these are set out in email between the parties. This is still outstanding despite request. He was only paid a small amount of his commission due.

There is a discount given by the company on appliances sold when kitchens of a certain value are purchased, but this was not taken into account in calculating the commissions. Sometimes there were items returned by customers which he would arrange to be taken back by the supplier. There were 5 appliances due to be returned when his employment was terminated. Due to the volume of sales the company was obtaining gifts of appliances from suppliers as well. The Complainant was accused of taking commission off other staff, but he says he was the only person employed to sell appliances so this could not have occurred.

The Complainant began seeking payment of his commission and then was dismissed out of the blue. He was employed initially on a 6 month fixed-term contract at a rate of 14.42 euro per hour.

His solicitor wrote to the company on a number of occasions seeking the outstanding commission.

The Respondent is a company involved in the design, manufacture and installation of kitchens. The Respondent was employed as an appliance manager on 21 June 2016 and his employment was terminated on 8th March 2017 some 8 months later.

The Respondent sought to engage with the Complainant in relation to his complaint regarding outstanding commission and sought details of payments due by letter of 26 July 2017 to his representatives, but no response was ever received.

The Respondent said it had repeated concerns regarding commission claims as it was concerned the Complainant was attempting to claim sales from other sales colleagues as his own and seeking commission on those sales. It says that the Complainant has failed to prove his claim for commission which should be dismissed.

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as an appliance sales person from 21st June 2016 for 8 months. He negotiated commission on sales with a representative from the Respondent and provided email evidence of the agreement. He sought payment of commission due based on sales of 20,000 euro weekly from the company as did his solicitor, based on appliance sales circulated.

The Respondent says it wrote to the Complainant’s representatives seeking details of the commissions sought for analysis but none were forthcoming, and the Complainant has failed to prove commissions due.

No evidence was adduced on the part of the Respondent to challenge the Complainant’s version of events, and the Complainant’s evidence is credible. In the circumstances, I find the Complainant is due payment of 5,611 euro commission.

I find the complaint is well founded and direct payment of arrears of wages of 5,611 euro gross commission together with compensation of 1 additional weeks wages of 576.80 euro gross, total 6,187.80 euro.

The Complainant worked with the company from 21st June 2016 to 15th March 2017 as an appliance sales person. His employment was terminated on 8th March 2017.

The Complainant says he is due agreed commission and he was only paid a small amount of his commission due.

The Complainant began seeking payment of his commission and then was dismissed unfairly out of the blue. He was employed initially on a 6 month fixed-term contract at a rate of 14.42 euro per hour which had expired.

The Complainant says no issues were raised with him prior to his dismissal and he was unfairly dismissed. His dismissal letter does not say why he was dismissed and these are very serious allegations.

At the hearing is the first time he has been accused of taking stock. The was an issue with stock missing from the warehouse but he was a sales person, and this was not his responsibility.

Sometimes there were items returned by customers which he would arrange to be taken back by the supplier. There were 5 appliances due to be returned when his employment was terminated. There was no over ordering by him, the stock could be wrong size for example a hood in a kitchen, and he could send these back without restocking charges. Due to the volume of sales, the company was obtaining gifts of appliances from suppliers as well.

The Complainant is accused of taking commission off other staff, but he says he was the only person employed to sell appliances so this could not have occurred.

There was no formal investigation into the allegations of sexual harassment and in relation to the allegations made regarding his colleague. These were only raised when he started looking for his commissions and he was given a very good reference. There were also comments made about his mixed-race heritage.

He was dismissed with no reason and was shocked. He was out of work for over 4 weeks initially then got another job. He is not earning as much in his new job with losses of 14,000 euro over the next 2 years.

The Respondent is a company involved in the design, manufacture and installation of kitchens. The Respondent was employed as an appliance manager on 21 June 2016 and his employment was terminated on 8th March 2017 8 months later.

The Respondent said it had repeated concerns regarding commission claims as it was concerned the Complainant was attempting to claim sales from other sales colleagues as his own and seeking commission on those sales.

The Respondent’s representative advised that it dismissed the Complainant due to his conduct. Firstly, there were 2 verbal sexual harassment complaints made against him by female colleagues who threatened to report what occurred to the Gardai but a representative from the company intervened. Secondly, there were complaints about inappropriate comments about a colleague’s baldness in front of a customer, thirdly there were concerns about the Complainant taking stock from the Respondent and sales from other colleagues for commissions, and fourthly, that he was repeatedly ordering the wrong stock resulting in wasted stock.

This resulted in a letter of termination given to the Complainant on 8th March 2017.

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as an appliance sales person from 21st June 2016 on a fixed term contract which expired in December 2016. The Complainant was dismissed on 8 March 2017 and the grounds of his dismissal are not outlined in the dismissal letter.

The Complainant says as soon as he began looking for his commission, allegations were made against him. However, it appears there was never any formal investigation by the company into any of the serious allegations made, and no disciplinary findings. The Complainant was not given any reason for his dismissal which he says is unfair and he did not have an opportunity to clear his name.

The Respondent dismissed the Complainant due to his conduct, however, the Complainant did not have an opportunity to respond to allegations made prior to his dismissal. The dismissal is not in accordance with fair procedures nor the Complainant’s contract of employment. I find the Complainant was unfairly dismissed as a result. The Complainant was out of work for a period of 1 month following his dismissal and has obtained a new job on reduced wages. In the circumstances, I recommend payment of 4 weeks loss of earnings to the Complainant by the Respondent.

I recommend payment of 4 week’s wages of 576.80 gross total 2,307.20 euro financial losses to the Complainant in respect of his dismissal.

Complaint of non- payment of commission, dispute on payment, dismissal without dealing with complaints made, fair procedures