ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013283
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Brewer | A Brewing Company |
Complaint:
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-00017458-001 | 15/02/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant claims that €750 was deducted from his wages unlawfully. He claims that as part of his employment agreement, the respondent agreed to pay him relocation assistance in the form of a deposit for his new rental accommodation. He claims he was never presented with any document in writing stating that the amount would be recovered from his wages upon termination of his employment. He claims that this is an unlawful deduction.
The respondent claims that it gave the complainant a loan to assist him securing accommodation when he was taking up employment with it. The respondent claims that it was agreed that the loan was repayable on the cessation of the complainant’s employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing and was not represented. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was present at the hearing and was ready to defend the allegations made against it. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The hearing was scheduled for 10am, when it was evident that the complainant was not in attendance, I suspended the hearing for a time to allow for his late arrival. In that time, I made contact with the Workplace Relations Commission to see if the complainant had been in touch to explain his non-attendance. I was informed he had not made contact. On the basis that the complainant did not attend the hearing, and as no evidence was given at the hearing in support of the allegations of an unlawful deduction, I conclude the investigation and find against him. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As part of my investigation under the Act, I am obliged to hold a hearing into the matter. I find that the complainant’s failure to attend such a hearing was unreasonable in the circumstances and that any obligation under the Act has ceased. There is a requirement for the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he can rely in asserting that there was an unlawful deduction from his wages. It is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut same. The complainant failed to attend the hearing and consequently has not established a prima facie case. Accordingly, I conclude the investigation of this complaint and find against the complainant. |
Dated: 6th November 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: James Kelly
Key Words:
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act – no attendance - find against the complainant |