Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A business development manager

A tea importer

The complainant asserts that he is owed unpaid wages of €3,800; the respondent denies the claim.

The complainant started employment in November 2017 and was paid €23,500 per annum. He was a business development manager and he sourced Indian tea and Malaysian fruit. He was based in a warehouse and also worked from home.

The complainant said he agreed to a lower salary as he wished to develop a long-term role. He asked for an increase in pay. There were delays in paying him and in April 2018, he lost patience and asked for the money. The respondent provided him with two cheques and dismissed the complainant. The respondent paid €2,700 in cash and €3,800 in cheques, but the cheques bounced.

In reply to the respondent, the complainant outlined that the respondent had not stated in an email that the €3,800 was to buy goods. While the respondent said bad things about the complainant, he still paid him €3,800 in two exact amounts of €1,900. The complainant said that he was the respondent’s employee, pointing to his work email address and his business card as evidence of this relationship. The respondent also introduced the complainant as the respondent’s business development manager. The complainant’s family hosted the director on his visit to India and introduced him to importers there. Through the complainant’s contacts, the respondent was able to import tea.

The director attending for the respondent outlined that he met the complainant via his son. The respondent employed one or two students at peak times. The complainant claimed that he had generated $90,000 in exporting Indian fruit and to have worked in a call centre, whose reference was not impressive. The respondent, however, never employed the complainant. The respondent asked the complainant to do some merchandising work, for example the logo, flyers etc. He used his own laptop. While the director drafted the employment letter, this was never issued it as he was not comfortable. While the complainant did some drafting work, he was never employed. The complainant had not invoiced the respondent.

The respondent moved to a larger warehouse in October 2017 and the complainant attended there. The complainant was freelance and did not have an employment contract. He had asked the respondent to sign the employment contract to assist him in India. The respondent had given the complainant the cheques to purchase goods. The cheques were stopped as the respondent had asked for the goods to be sent first. While the director visited the complainant’s family in India, his company was only an office on the first floor of a mosque. The director outlined that helping the complainant backfired on him.

In reply to the complainant, the respondent outlined that the complainant had misrepresented he could blend a tea in India. They sought to match Irish breakfast tea. The complainant had introduced himself as freelance and charged the respondent for printing and graphic design work.

The first question is whether the complainant was an employee of the respondent, such that to entitle him to redress pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. Having considered the evidence, I find that the complainant was an employee of the respondent. I make this finding because the evidence indicates that, as exhibited by his emails, the complainant worked for the respondent in developing import/export ventures and other business opportunities. I note that the complainant was integrated into the respondent, i.e. had an email address provided by the respondent and worked in the respondent warehouse. It is not disputed that the respondent gave the complainant two cheques of €1,900, which bounced. I find that these were “wages” within the ambit of the Payment of Wages Act. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to recover redress of €3,800.

CA-00021869-001

The complaint made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €3,800.

Payment of Wages Act

Whether the complainant is an employee