ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014246
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00018572-002 | 18/04/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00018572-004 | 18/04/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/08/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complaints centre on a two-week period of employment in early 2018 and involve a complaint regarding excessive working time and a deduction from wages. I held a hearing in the case on 15 August 2018. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant and she had not communicated any difficulty with the scheduled date of hearing. I allowed 15 minutes of the hearing time to pass to allow for any delays. I commenced the hearing at 10.45 hrs. The Complainant did not make any further contact with the WRC prior to submission of this decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant submitted a written complaint on 18 April 2018. She stated that she was a Polish National and had worked for the Respondent from 12 February ,2018 to 25 February 2018.She submitted that she worked a 45-hour week for a nett payment of 435 .00 euro. CA- 00018572-002 The Complainant stated that she did not receive a statement of hours of work as she worked 7 am to 7pm six days a week. CA -0008572-004 The complainant stated that 50 euros was deducted from her wages on 25 February ,2018 and a further 150 euro was deducted in relation to securing a PPS number. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent refuted both claims. He outlined that he ran a farm business. The Complainant had commenced work at his farm without a PPS number and time was spent securing this with her. There was a waiting period for registration. Immediately on receipt of the PPS number, the complainant left. The Respondent had discharged all payments owed and he considered that the complainant had been treated fairly at her employment. CA-00018572-003 The Respondent rejected the claim. CA-00018572-004 The Respondent rejected the claim. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I convened the hearing to hear from both parties. The Respondent was the sole attendee and I heard his response to the claim. I am satisfied that the complainant was notified of the hearing and sufficient time could permit her attendance or allow for reasons for a difficulty in attending. I find that both claims cannot succeed for want of prosecution. |
Decision:Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act. CA -00018572-003 Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act. The complaint falls for want of prosecution. CA-00018572-004 Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, requires that I decide in relation to the claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 5 of the Act. The Complaint falls for want of prosecution. |
Dated: 26/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Patsy Doyle
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Annual Leave. |