Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Barista

A Coffee Shop

Representatives

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-00019348-001

22/05/2018

The complainant began work with the respondent on April 25th 2018 and was paid €9.55 per hour.

She was told that there would be a two-day trial or training period. He did not say that the trial period would not be paid for.

After the two days she was told that she had been successful and had passed the trial period.

She was not paid after the first week as the respondent told her she had not earned enough in the course of the week to cover her wages, but that she would be paid at the end of the second week for both weeks.

He did not do so.

She worked up to May 6th following which she received an email on the 8th saying that her employment was being discontinued but that she would not be paid as her period of employment had been an unpaid trial.

She would not have accepted employment on such a basis and not only was that not agreed but the respondent had made it clear after the first week that she would be paid.

She accepts that she had been late on two occasions as a result of a misunderstanding about her starting times. She has not included these hours in her claim.

She claims twenty-nine hours at €9.55 and holiday pay at 8% of this figure; a total of €299.11.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing and no explanation was received for his failure to do so.

The complainant had previous experience of working as a barista in her home country. She had very good English and presented her complaint with impressive competence and supporting documents.

This observation is prompted to provide some context for the necessity of any training, or trial which may have been required to assess her suitability for employment.

It seems most unlikely that any familiarisation that would have been required would have taken more than a day, and no more than two.

In any event, provision for training on the job, in particular, does not exempt an employer from the responsibility to pay wages for work done and such ‘training’ must be approached with great care.

There may be circumstances where unpaid training will be permitted. At the very least, this would have to be shown to be necessary to equip the trainee with essential skills for the position and involve a structured programme of learning.

The terms of any such training programme would also need to be set out in advance, and clearly understood and agreed by the participant.

None of these tests are met in the current case. The complainant could easily have been given a familiarisation module in a few hours while she continued to discharge her duties.

This did not happen. In any event she was told after two days that she had passed the ‘trial’.

After two weeks, it still remains a valid option for an employer to terminate employment as further learning is done about an employee’s skills and suitability, subject to the normal rules.

What he may not do, is retrospectively concoct a tale such as happened here to justify not honouring the obligation to pay wages lawfully due.

I uphold complaint CA-00019348-001 and award the complainant €299.11.

Unpaid training