ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016868
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A chef | A restaurant |
Complaint:
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-00021897-001 | 17/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 17th September 2018, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 23rd November 2018. At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the date, time and venue of the adjudication. Having verified this, I proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the outset of the adjudication, the complainant confirmed the identity of the respondent employer. He outlined that his employment commenced on the 10th April 2017 and came to an end on the 2nd September 2018. While he received a pay slip and P45 at the end of his employment, the monies stated in the pay slip were not actually paid to him. He was owed €618.75 in pay and €401.08 in holiday pay. These monies still have not been paid to him.
The complainant outlined that he had worked as head chef and looked after staff rosters in the kitchen. This role was taken off him and the respondent reduced hours for all staff. This increased pressure in the kitchen. It was not a happy environment. The complainant resigned on the 2nd September 2018 and the owner told him that he did not have to work his notice. He was able to find work shortly after. On the 4th September, the owner asked the complainant to come back and work his notice, but he already had interviews scheduled. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the adjudication and did not deny that the complainant is owed the monies. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant’s uncontested evidence was that the respondent did not remit the last pay and holiday pay due to him. The complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act is well founded. Pursuant to section 6(1), I awarded redress of €1,020.55. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00021897-001 I find that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay redress of €1,020.55 to the complainant. |
Dated: 6th February 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act |