Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Online Sectoral Journal

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-00019319-001

18/05/2018

The Complainant commenced working for the Respondent on 1 September 2016, in the role of Editor/Managing Editor. The Complainant left the Respondent's employment on 14 April 2017 but returned again on 24 July 2017 and worked to 5 January 2018, when he resigned.

Background:

The Complainant stated that, when he commenced his employment with the Respondent, in September 2016, there was an agreement that he would receive an incremental payment of €2000 per annum based on the gaining of every extra 100,000 sessions on the website. At the time, the Respondent confirmed to the Complainant that website numbers were just below 500,000.

According to the Complainant's evidence, while he was employed, between September 2016 and April 2017, readership of the Respondent’s website increased from 500,000 to 1 million readers per month. The Complainant further stated that these were unique sessions and this fact is displayed on the Respondent's website as recently as 3 September 2018.

The Complainant stated that he regularly worked beyond his contracted hours in order to achieve the growth in readership. The Complainant stated that while he was assisted by one other, part-time, journalist and a number of outside freelance writers, the growth in readership was down to his editorial strategy, writing and hard work. In support of this, the Complainant stated that, during his period of employment with the Respondent, he would work 4 unpaid hours every Sunday to ensure that there were news stories ready for each Monday morning’s run of content.

According to the Complainant's evidence, he worked all these extra, unpaid hours in the belief that the readership growth would result in the agreed payment of €10,000, once the readership reached 1 million and once that level was achieved, he requested payment of this bonus.

The Complainant stated that, after months of hard work and after the departure of the part-time journalist, he was exhausted and felt his work was not being appreciated. Consequently, the Complainant left the role in April 2017 and informed the Respondent’s General Manager (GM) that he would like his bonus paid and also informed him that he would hopefully return to the role once he was rested.

The Complainant provided documentary evidence to the effect that he sent email reminders to GM throughout the months March to July 2017 seeking his bonus. According to the Complainant he received no reply to these emails and his attempt to receive the money owed to him were unsuccessful.

According to the Complainant's evidence he returned to the employment of the Respondent on 24 July 2017. He stated that his reason for this was that he considered the prospect of receiving the money due to him might be enhanced if he were back in employment with the Respondent.

The Complainant stated that, on his return, he requested a contract of employment and an agreement that his bonus would be paid. The Complainant stated that it was agreed that the bonus money was a separate, was owed from his first stint of employment with the Respondent and that it needed to be paid.

According to the Complainant, GM informed him that it would be October 2017 before they would be in a position to pay the bonus money owed to him. Given those commitments, the Complainant stated that he re-engaged with the Respondent, in his previous role as Managing Editor, on an increased salary.

According to the Complainant's evidence, he carried out his role as Managing Editor from July 2017 to January 2018. However, he stated that issues in relation to the non-payment of the bonus continued and, as a result, he gave notice of his resignation to the Respondent on 1 December 2017. The Complainant finished employment with the Respondent on 5 January 2018.

According to the Complaint, it was agreed with the Respondent that the bonuses money owed to him would be paid, as well as ad sales commission which he had earned from selling ads on the website during the period of his employment.

The Complainant stated that he received an email from the Respondent on 9 January 2018 pertaining to the return of certain items of company property such as the car, fuel card and iPad. The Complainant stated that he took the opportunity of this contact to once again raise the issue of the outstanding monies but he received no reply from the Respondent.

The Complainant provided documentary evidence, in the form of emails and texts, which chronicled his efforts, throughout January/February 2018, to get payment of the monies owed to him and to get his P45. The Complainant further stated that, while he received his P45 on 14 February 2018, he received no response from the Respondent with regard to the monies owed.

The Complainant's final email to the Respondent in this regard was dated 5 March 2018 and, when he received no reply, he decided to engage a solicitor in an effort to have the matter sorted out. On his solicitor’s advice, the Complainant send a registered letter, dated 26 March 2018, to the Respondent requesting the payment of the outstanding monies. The Complainant stated that, while he was able to confirm that the letter had been received by the Respondent, he received no reply.

The Complainant stated that, at this point, he lodged his complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).

Substantive Claim:

The Complainant's claim, which is made under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, relates to outstanding payments which he claims are due to him.

The first of these relates to a €10,000 bonus which he is due on foot of an agreement with the Respondent, that he would receive €2000 for every additional 100,000 increase in readership/visitors to the website.

According to the Complainant, when he commenced his role in September 2016, the numbers were at 500,000 and during his time working with the Respondent he grew the numbers to 1,000,000. Based on this, the Complaint is claiming the bonus of €10,000.

With regard to the commission payment, the Complainant stated that, as part of his role as Editor, he was responsible for ad sales on the website. The Complainant also stated that, in addition, he sold advertising slots for a number of live video shows which were produced from July 2017 to December 2017.

According to the Complainant, there was an agreement in place with the Respondent that he would receive 10% commission on all ad sales. The Complainant provided documentary evidence in relation to sales, which supported his claim of €580.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing and did not provide any written responses to the complaint.

Having carefully considered the comprehensive evidence presented by the Complainant and in the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, I find that the Complainant’s claims are well founded. I am further satisfied that the Complainant is entitled to the monies as claimed and that the Respondent is in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 in failing to make payment of same

Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and based on the considerations/findings as detailed above, I find in the Complainant's favour and award him a total of €10,580, in respect of monies owed to him by the Respondent, who is found to be in breach of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. This award is subject to the normal statutory deductions pertaining to wages/salary.

Payment of Wages