Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00015936-001

22/11/2017

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00015975-001

24/11/2017

The complainant had been employed as a Security Operative since August 6th 2015 until his employment ended on December 13th 2017.

He was paid €950 per fortnight.

Complaint CA-00015936-001 under the Employment Equality Act was withdrawn at the hearing.

An allegation had been made against the complainant that he had passed sensitive business information in July 2017 outside his place of work. Following a period of annual leave he says he was subjected to ‘excessive monitoring’ by a supervisor.

He made a complaint about this to the HR department which was not properly investigated.

Subsequently, a complaint was made against the complainant by a co-worker.

For the purposes of the investigation he was suspended on pay for a period but was not, in fact, paid for all of it; a two-week period being unpaid.

He also says the suspension was discriminatory as when he had made the earlier complaint the person against who it was made was not suspended.

The respondent says that the monitoring of the complainant was appropriate in the circumstances.

The complainant initially resigned on July 15th 2017 but returned to work a week later.

He then resigned again in December.

The respondent denies that any further payments are due to the complainant.

The respondent submitted copies of the complainant’s roster for October 2017 and November 2017 which refers to the periods of suspension in question.

It shows that in the last week of September into October he worked. Then from October 2nd-8th 2017 he was on paid suspension for the first week.

He was subsequently paid for the following 3 weeks, although this was not marked down on his roster. The reason he was not marked on his roster was down to the fact that a date could not be arranged to meet with him.

Evidence of correspondence showing attempts to meet him was submitted.

The complainant put meetings off in the last week of October and then went on annual leave.

Manual payment slips up until 20th October were also submitted in evidence and thereafter the respondent says the complainant would not meet so he was not due paid suspension. He was paid for the following three weeks in October.

In November 2017 the complainant took the full month off in annual leave and therefore is not due any further payment for suspension or annual leave (as he took all leave due to him).

I can find no gap in the payment of wages schedule as outlined above.

The respondent has provided evidence that the complainant was paid for four weeks, but there is no two week gap to support the complainant’s case that he is owed further wages. He commenced his period of annual leave as soon as the period of suspension was concluded, on the basis of this evidence and I so find.

Complaint CA-00015936-001 under the Employment Equality Act was withdrawn at the hearing and it is dismissed.   I do not uphold Complaint CA-00015975-001 for the reasons set out above and it, too is dismissed.

Payment for suspension