ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016829
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A security Guard | A Security provider |
Complaint(s):
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-00021654-001 | 07/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/10/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
In particular, the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, in circumstances where the complaint is deemed to be well founded, compensation in the amount so specified may be awarded.
In a preliminary way, I am satisfied a Contract of Employment existed between the parties such that a wage defined by the 1991 Act was payable to the Employee by the Employer in connection with the employment. I further find that the Complainant’s Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 7th of September 2018 was submitted within the time allowed.
Background:
The Complainant has worked as a security guard for upwards of two years with the Respondent company. The Complainant left the employment in June of 2018 and received his payslip for his last cycle of work including some days that were due and owing form previous cycles. The gross amount payable in accordance with the final payslip (dated the 30th of June 2018) was €2,951.00 with the nett amount payable being €2,611.25. The amount due was not lodged into the Complainant’s Bank Account in the usual way. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant ‘s representative put it to me that the sum of money was still due and owing and that the withholding of this money amounted to a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made no appearance at the hearing and I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the hearing date. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant’s representative showed me some correspondence between herself and the CEO of the Respondent company. I am satisfied that the Respondent CEO was on Notice of today’s hearing. I am further satisfied that the Respondent has accepted a liability in relation to unpaid wages. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in making payment. |
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.
The Complainant herein has referred a complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The Redress permissible is set out in Section 6 of the said 1991 Payment of Wages Act.
I confirm that I deem the complaint herein to be well founded.
I award compensation in the sum of €2,951.00.
|
Dated: 5.11.18
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|