ADJ-00018429

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Guesthouse/Bar Manager

Guesthouse/Bar

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00023732-001

04/12/2018

The Worker commenced employment at the Employer’s Guesthouse/Bar on 22 February 2018. He said he was not issued with a contract of employment. He claims that he was accused of taking money from the business and sought to clear his name and recover the wages and other money owing to him including bank holiday’s and holiday entitlements plus his P45. He managed to have a meeting with the Respondent to explain his side of the story and clear his good name, which he did.

The Worker said that the Employer promised to pay what was owed to him. However, after a number of weeks of unanswered calls and texts and failure by the Employer to turn up for pre-arranged meetings, the Worker referred the case to the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Worker had commenced working with the Employer in a Guesthouse/Bar on 22 February 2018 where his main duties included handling room bookings, customer relations, accommodation and bar duties, general staff management. He said that room bookings were made primarily through an online agent by credit card payment transactions into the company account. A code was required to access the account which he did not have access; only the owner of the business, Mr. A, and his book-keeper Ms. B, had access to the code. The non-access to the code was creating a difficulty in balancing and processing payments and he asked on a number of times to get access but was never given access it.

He said that on Saturday 23 June 2018 he received a phone call from Mr. A who was extremely irate on the phone, querying the online payments for three rooms from the previous weekend and accusing the Worker of taking the money. The Worker denied this and calmly explained that without the code, he had no control over the transfer of those payments, so it could not be him. Mr. A refused to listen and told him to leave the property immediately and not come back to work. He left but continued to attempt to clarify the situation with both Mr A and Ms. B. Multiple calls and texts to both were not answered or returned for a few weeks. Eventually Mr. A rang and asked to meet him and accepted that he could not have taken the money, but still insisted that he should have been in a position to process the payments and therefore, was liable for the recovery of the money.

The Complainant said he did not know how to deal with his position, but it was very clear that his employment at the Guesthouse/Bar would not be recommenced. He said that his wages for

the three weeks prior to his dismissal were unpaid at that point and he made numerous attempts to contact both Mr. A and Ms. B in respect of outstanding wages, holiday entitlements and his P45. Again, all his calls and texts went unanswered for a number of weeks. The Worker’s wife picked up a call from an unknown person, connected to the Employer, who said that the Worker had 'no right to be ringing looking for money', that he 'wasn't entitled to anything' and that he should stop 'troubling’ Ms. B. This person said that if the Worker had outstanding issues he should email them to a particular email address, which he did.

Mr. A met the Worker on three occasions and he agreed to pay all outstanding monies owed and that payment would be transferred within a couple of weeks. Despite this assurance and numerous attempts to contact Mr. A since then, the Worker has not received any payment. He also said that he received an incorrect P45 a couple of months after finishing, which he returned to Mr. A with a request to re-issue a correct P45, showing the correct dates.

The Employer had been in contact with the WRC and confirmed who the correct employer was that employed the Worker. The Employer also had sought an adjournment, as one of the its witnesses would not be available on the day. This request was refused by the WRC.

No one presented for or on behalf of the Employer on the day of the hearing, and after waiting sometime to allow for a late arrival, I proceeded with the hearing as was scheduled. I am fully satisfied that both parties were fully aware of the hearing.

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

Having heard all the evidence available to me I made the following recommendation.

The Worker has presented a very genuine case of working extremely hard and portraying all the characteristics of an excellent employee that any Employer should have been fortunate to have in his staff. I am satisfied that this has been an extraordinary difficult time for the Worker and he deserves respect for how he has conducted himself through these challenging few months.

Having considered all the evidence before me, I note that the Worker is only looking for what he is rightly entitled to and has not been provided with to date.

Accordingly, I have found that the Workers case is well founded, and I recommend the following,

That the Employer pays the Worker all the 4 weeks salary outstanding to him in full, which I determine to be €1,870 [one thousand eight hundred and seventy euro] and that is the amount to be paid.

The Employer pays the Worker for the 4 public holidays that occurred during his employment there which I determine as €400 [four hundred euro] and that is the amount to be paid.

The Employer pays the Worker for his annual leave entitlement that accrued during his employment there which I determine to be 7 days leave x €100 = €700 [seven hundred euro] and that is the amount to be paid.

The Employer provides the Worker the appropriate P45 documentation corrected to include all the weeks that the Worker worked in the Guesthouse/Bar up to and including the 23 June 2018.

The total compensation to be paid to the Worker by the Employer is €2,970 [two thousand and seventy euro].

Industrial Relations Acts - well founded –compensation