Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

HGV Driver

Haulage company

Representatives

Self

Self

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-00008931-001

27/12/2016

The start date for the Complainant’s employment was the 6th of December 2016. His finish date was the 23rd of December 2016. The Complainant lodged his complaint under this reference on the 27th of December 2016.

The first hearing date for this reference was on the 10th of March 2017. At that hearing there was no attendance for the Complainant and he advised that he thought that the case was on the 11th of March 2017 which was a Saturday.

Detailed written submissions were lodged by both parties.

The case was rescheduled for hearing on the 11th of May 2017 and again there was no attendance for the Complainant. When contacted he advised that he thought the case was going to mediation which was an option for the associated case of ADJ-00006873. I accept that receiving correspondence from the WRC in relation to two separate cases may give rise to confusion.

The Respondent attended both the 10th of March 2017 and the 11th of May 2017. The case was relisted for hearing on the 19th of June 2017 and on this day only the Complainant attended. The Respondent didn’t attend. There was correspondence on the file advising that the Respondent wouldn’t attend that scheduled hearing.

I proceeded with the case and noted the Respondents written submissions.

It was agreed between the parties that the Complainant only worked seven days.

One dispute between them is with regard to the daily rate of pay. The Complainant states it was €110.00 per day. The Respondent states it was €100.00 per day. Both payments appear to be a net (after deduction of taxes) payment as opposed to a gross (before deduction of taxes) payment.

Also there is a dispute as to whether subsistence was to be paid. The Complainant argued that he was to be paid €27.00 per day if he travelled over 30km. The Respondent has no agreement on this.

The Complainant was seeking payment for a day's training. The Respondent described the 6th of December 2016 as a shadowing day for which no payment was to be made.

The Complainant’s case is that the total payment he should have received for the seven days plus the training day was €1,310.00. The Respondent paid the Complainant €700.00 for wages and a further €50.00 for diesel.

The payments were to be made a week in arrears on a Friday.

Evidence was provided from the Respondent that €300.00 for days worked the 14th, 15th and 16th of December 2016 was paid from its Bank of Ireland Account to the Complainant’s Permanent TSB account on the 23rd of December 2016 which was a Friday.

The Complainant’s bank account was furnished showing that this payment only hit his account on the 29th of December 2016.

Payment for the Complainant’s days worked on the 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd of December 2016 was paid by the Respondents on the 29th of December 2016 and the Complainant’s bank statement showed it hit his account on the 30th of December 2016.

The Respondent’s submission was that the Complainant had failed to provide employment details to register him as an employee of theirs. Their positon is that all employees are paid net of deductions legally required and transferred to the employee’s nominated bank account.  

The Terms of Employment Information Act requires the furnishing of minimum terms of employment within two months of commencement of employment, however best practice would dictate that it should be immediately on engagement of the employee.

If this had occurred the confusion as to the rate of pay and whether subsistence was to be paid and the training day was to be paid would have been clarified.

The communication between the parties was by text only and if these details had been set out in a text /email or letter to the Complainant and what documents were required from the Complainant, the dispute would have been dealt with earlier.

By the Complainant’s own admission he was advised by the Respondent managing director, that staff were always paid Thursday evening/Friday morning.

The issue of subsistence is a matter of agreement between the parties. The Complainant in his written statement 29th of January 2017 set out that the Respondent had “guessed” that same was €27.00 per day.   In some of the correspondence the Complainant stated he was entitled to €31.00 per day.

Taking into account the evidence both oral and written submitted to me and the absence of certain information on taxation of the wages, I am allowing the 8 days (including the training day) at €110.00 per day and subsistence at €27.00 per day for the 8 days worked.   The Respondent registered the Complainant with Revenue on an emergency tax basis and paid him €100 per day net. I was not furnished the details of what tax was paid.

Taking into account the payments made to the Complainant as set out above, I am awarding the Complainant the sum of €396.00 in wages due to him, however same is on a gross basis and is to be taxed.

Daily rate. Subsistence