Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Trainee Activity Leader

A Business

Representatives

No Appearance by or on behalf of the Complainant

Deirdre Crowley, Matheson

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00023887-001

04/12/2018

This complaint seeking National Minimum Wage payment for a 1-week employment tenure was lodged with the WRC on 4 December 2018.

The case was due for hearing on 10 September 2019. On that morning, the Respondent attended. The Complainant did not make an appearance.

On Inquiry, I learned that the complainant’s representative was unexpectedly ill and would not be in attendance. The Complainant had submitted a very late notification of same the evening prior to the hearing . This development aggrieved the assembled Respondent Team led by their Solicitor.

The Respondent made the following response. The Complainant, who was not a minor, ought to have made an appearance seeking a postponement. One postponement had already been granted to the Respondent in the case on foot of an early notification. The Respondent had taken valuable time away from work to defend the case. The Respondent submitted that the Complainants representative was in fact a Barrister in her own right and as such would have been au fait with WRC procedures. The Respondent was not prepared to consent to any last-minute postponement on those grounds and sought that the case be struck out.

The Complainant had made a written complaint that she had not been paid national minimum wage during 23 July -30 July 2018.

No further details were advanced. I did not have the benefit of a statement requested or obtained under Section 23 of the Act.

The Respondent disputed the claim and outlined their request for dismissal of the claim at hearing.

I have given some thought to the circumstances surrounding the invitation to hearing in this case. I am satisfied that both parties were notified of the time place and details of the Hearing procedures on 15 August 2019.

This letter ended with information on the application for postponement procedure which incorporated seeking full reasons for application and the obligatory accompanying documentation.

On 10 September ,2019, the WRC wrote directly to the Complainants representative seeking collateral documentation covering her reported sickness. Three weeks have now passed, and nothing has been forthcoming.

I have had regard for the Respondent submissions and mindful that they made a full attendance complete with Legal Representation on the day of hearing. I have found that the complainant’s absence from this hearing was unreasonable. I have not been able to advance on her complaint dated 4 December 2018.

Section 24(2) of the Act provides that the Director General of the WRC shall not entertain a dispute in relation to an employee’s entitlements under the Act unless the employee has obtained a Section 23 statement of her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period.

I have not had the benefit of complainant evidence or the statement in accordance with Section 23 of the Act.

I have concluded that in the face of a continued absence of any detail on which I can decide, I find the claim is not well founded.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint.

I have found that the complainant was unreasonable in not attending the hearing to address her claim. I found that it was unreasonable not to respond to the WRC request for documentary evidence of illness.

I have found the complaint to be not well founded.

National Minimum Wage