Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Customer Support and Systems Administrator

A Bitcoin Company

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant  

Aoife McCarthy Douglas Law Solicitors

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-00021129-001

13/08/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00021129-005

13/08/2018

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

CA-00021204-001

16/08/2018

The Complainant had submitted several complaints on alleged non-payment of wages, compensation for Sunday working and bullying and Harassment procedures. These referred to a period of employment which commenced in November 2017.

Two days before the hearing, the Complainant informed the WRC that he would be unable to attend the hearing on medical grounds. When requested to submit validator documentation, the Complainant did not engage in the request to make an official application for a postponement as he submitted a copy of an apparent invitation to attend a Medical appointment, some one month before the scheduled hearing.

The Complainant did not attend the hearing and did not make any further contact with the WRC prior to the completion of this report.

CA-00021129-001 The Complainant submitted that he was owed a sum in unpaid wages

CA-00021189-001 The Complainant submitted that he was not given compensation for working Sundays

CA -00021129-005 The Claimant submitted that he had been accused by his employer of impersonating the company on social media.

The Respondent was represented by his Solicitor and explained that they had appeared to defend the claims made. The Respondent is multi locational in business and was disadvantaged by the complainant’s nonappearance at hearing. The Respondent denied that they were the Employer in either case and the correct name of the Employer was submitted at hearing. The Respondent Solicitor submitted that a WRC Inspection had not progressed as the WRC had been satisfied that the Respondent was not the correctly named employer.

The Respondent submitted a written submission, clarifying the correct name of the Respondent and pointing to the duplication of claims in ADJ 16255.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was on proper notice of the hearing set for 1 February 2019. I note that he submitted a copy of an invitation to a Clinic appointment scheduled for 4 weeks in advance of the hearing. I have found that he did not engage in the approved process of seeking an adjournment in his case. I have not received a medically justified reason for the complainant’s nonattendance at hearing.

I am obliged to hold a hearing in the case of both complaints and in the Dispute. I find that the complainant was unreasonable in his nonattendance at hearing and for his noncompliance with the request for appropriate medical documentation to satisfy the WRC Adjournment process.

CA -00021129-001 I have found the complaint to be not well founded

CA-00021189-001 I have found the complaint to be not well founded

CA -00021129-005 I have not found merit in the Dispute

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints and dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in accordance with the terms of Section 5 of the Act.

CA -00021129-001 I have found the complaint to be not well founded

CA-00021189-001 I have found the complaint to be not well founded

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

CA -00021129-005 I have not found merit in the Dispute

Payment of Wages, Sunday Premia and Bullying and Harassment procedures