Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Operations Manager

A Hotel

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-00018168-001

26/03/2018

The complainant had been the Operations Manager in the hotel with responsibility for the night club and restaurant. He was paid €769.32 per week.

In mid-December 2017 the complainant was told that the night club would be closing for four to five weeks for refurbishment.

He went on annual leave and returned on January 21st.

He attended at work and began the process of re-launching the venue; developing promotions, putting together a schedule of DJs and so on. However, he was not paid wages from the date of his return.

A launch date had been agreed and after being postponed on a few occasions the venue opened for business on May 5th.

However, this only lasted for three weeks and it then stopped trading. The complainant believes a receiver or liquidator was appointed.

On May 23rd he was told that the night club would not be opening and was asked to hand back the keys.

The complainant first raised the non-payment of his wages on February 2nd and despite other emails and face to face meetings he did not receive any payments.

He got a letter dated May 10th, (but not received until May 19th) advising of his transfer to a new entity and that the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations would apply.

He claims payment of outstanding wages from January 21st up to May 22nd, a period of ten weeks.

A witness, who had been a co-worker attended and gave evidence confirming the core facts in the complainant’s narrative.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. No explanation was received for its failure to do so.

In the absence of the respondent I am required to consider the complaint on the basis of the complainant’s evidence only, supported in general terms by his witness.

There was no evidence of any termination of the complainant’s employment and therefore he remained in employment and entitled to be paid his wages. Indeed, he was actively engaged at work on the respondent’s behalf and this removes any residue of doubt about his status.

I accept his evidence and uphold his complaint.

I and make an award as set out below in respect of ten weeks wages due to him.

I uphold complaint CA-00018168 and award the complainant €7693.20 being ten weeks wages and subject to usual statutory deductions.

Payment of Wages