Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Full-Stack Developer

A Marketing Company (in liquidation)

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-00019440-002

26/05/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00019440-012

26/05/2018

The Complainant commenced her employment with the Respondent on 4th September 2017 and her employment was terminated on 18th April 2018. The Complainant was paid €400 gross a week and worked 36 hours.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. I confirmed that a letter had issued notifying the Respondent of the date, time and location of the hearing. The Respondent did not engage with the WRC at any stage prior to the hearing. The Respondent did not apply for a postponement and did not indicate any difficulties attending the hearing. The Liquidator of the Respondent company contacted the WRC on 28th August 2018 informing that he will be on holidays and will not be able to attend the hearing. WRC informed the Liquidator by letter dated 31st August 2018 that postponement of the hearing arrangements is granted only in exceptional circumstances and an application must be submitted in writing at the earliest possible date, setting out the reasons for the request and must be accompanied by the relevant supporting documentation. No further communication was received from the Liquidator. In the circumstances, I find that the Respondent’s non-attendance to be unreasonable.

The Complainant submits that a weekly payment of her wages of €400 was made to her on 16th March 2018. The Complainant claims that an extra amount of €100 was also to be paid weekly to make up for past periods where no wages were paid. The Complainant alleges that on 16th March 2018 only €50 of the €100 she was owed was paid to her. She was not made aware that this deduction would occur. The Complainant submits that when it was queried, she was told that the payment would be topped up over the week. However, the problem was not resolved.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that find that the complaint made pursuant the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the Respondent shall pay to the Complainant redress of €50.

The Complainant submits that during her employment with the Respondent she did not receive a statement in writing of her terms of employment and she was not made aware of her terms of employment including holiday, public holiday and sick day entitlements.

There was no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent.

Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 requires that:

“(1) An employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing the following particulars …… “.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Respondent was in breach of Section 3 of the Terms of Employment (Information), Act 1994 and that the Complainant should have been furnished with the written statement of Terms and Conditions of Employment within two months after the commencement of employment.

Based on the uncontested evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the complaint is well-founded and I direct the Respondent to pay to the Complainant redress of €500.

Terms of employment- unlawful deduction