ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISIONS
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00015389
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Professional Services Manager | An IT firm |
Complaints:
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-00020066-001 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00020066-002 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00020066-003 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00020066-004 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00020066-005 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00020066-006 | 28/06/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 14 of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 | CA-00020066-007 | 28/06/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/12/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
At the time the adjudication was scheduled to commence, it was apparent that there was no attendance by or on behalf of the respondent. I verified that the respondent was on notice of the time, date and venue of the adjudication and, therefore, proceeded with the adjudication in the absence of the respondent.
Background:
The complainant asserts that he is owed unpaid wages over seven months and was treated less favourably because he was on a fixed term contract of employment. The respondent does not oppose the claims. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced working for the respondent on the 2nd October 2017 and received monthly remuneration of €7,500. He left the respondent’s employment at the end of July 2018. His employment was subject to a fixed-term contract of employment. He asserts that the permanent employees continued to be paid while he was not. This was differential treatment and the last straw for his resignation. He received a P60 from the respondent during his employment and a P45 subsequently.
The complainant outlined that there were ongoing shortfalls in the amounts remitted to him. While he received pay slips, no monies were paid to him or a lesser amount was paid. The six complaints related to the months from December 2017 to the end of his employment. In total, he received €2,000 for January 2017, €2,500 for February 2017 and €1,500 for March 2017. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not oppose the claims. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant is entitled to redress for unpaid wages due to him from December 2017 to the end of his employment. Since December 2017, the complainant has received total pay of €6,000 and he is due remuneration of €7,500 per month. The amounts paid for January, February and March 2017 have been deducted from the sums payable in each respective complaint.
The complainant has established he is a fixed-term worker and subject to less favourable conditions of employment. The claim is well founded and I make an award of €2,500 in this regard. |
Decisions:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00020066-001 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €7,500, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-002 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €5,500, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-003 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €5,000, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-004 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €6,000, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-005 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €7,500, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-006 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €22,500, less any deductions lawfully due in tax.
CA-00020066-007 I find that this complaint pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act is well founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €2,500. This is redress for a statutory breach and does not amount to remuneration or arrears in remuneration. |
Dated: 17th January, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act |