ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020562
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Hotel Worker | Hotel |
Representatives |
| DID NOT ATTEND |
Complaint:
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-00027149-001 | 19/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/04/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Hotel Worker from 19th September 2018 to 9th November 2018. He was paid €9.55 per hour and worked a 38-hour week. He has claimed that he is owed €491.82. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant stated that on 7th October 2018 he was left short wages and he spoke to his manager and €481.92 was lodged to his account. However, on 21st October 2018 the amount of €481.92 was deducted as an advance. The following pay period €481.92 was lodged but it was then deducted as an advance. He is still owed the amount and he is seeking the payment of €481.82. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented. |
The Complainant showed a letter from the Respondent’s Finance Department dated 13th March 2019. It referred to the possible confusion on the Complainant’s part to the fact that he was left short on 10th October. The missing hours were advanced to him in an amount of €481.82 on 12th October. These missing hours needed to be processed through payroll. He queried this and stated that he should not have had a deduction for the advance and he was incorrectly given it a second time and it needed it to be deducted again.
Findings and Conclusions:
I note correspondence on file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing. I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented. Based on uncontested evidence before the hearing I find as follows: The Complainant gave direct evidence that €481.82 was advanced to him because of the shortfall in his wages. It was then deducted. This €481.82 was then given to him but deducted again. I find that I have no evidence from the Respondent that the Complainant actually received the shortfall of €481.82 without any deductions for whatever reason. I find that this hearing required the direct of evidence of the Respondent, but they failed to attend. So, on the balance of probability and based on uncontested evidence before this hearing I find that the Complainant is owed €481.82. |
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.
Based on uncontested evidence I have decided that the Respondent has breached Sec 5 of this Act.
I require the Respondent to pay the Complainant €481.82 within six weeks of the date below.
Dated: 5th June 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Eugene Hanly
Key Words:
Wages owed |