ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020892
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | {Security Officer} | {A Security Company} |
Complaint(s):
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-00027488-001 | 03/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Procedure:
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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed as a Security Officer with the Respondent from 2 November 2018 to 28th March 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was working with a company in December 2018. He has named 2 different Respondents in this complaint and a related complaint CA-00027632-001. Both of the named Respondents trade from the same address and under the same website. The Complainant’s wages are paid by another company which also trades from the same address. The Complainant was not paid wages for the month of 2,451.60 euro even though he was issued with a payslip. He had to go abroad due to the illness of his brother. The company said they would send it, but he never received the monies due. The Complainant produced evidence of repeated emails and communications to his employer seeking the monies due. He is also owed 350.09 for other hours worked, also unpaid. He had serious financial pressure as a result of this and had to take a bank loan due to his debts. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no appearance by the Respondent at the hearing. Notification of the Complainant’s claims was sent to the Respondent’s address. This is also the address of the company who paid the wages of the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have heard the oral submissions and considered the written submissions of the Complainant. The Complainant seeks payment of wages owed pursuant to S6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Despite efforts he has not received the monies due. I am satisfied that notification of the Complainant’s complaint was sent to 2 different entities who are trading from the same address. The Complainant’s wages and payslip were paid by a third company also trading from the same address. In those circumstances, the employer would have known, or ought to have known, that a complaint had been made against them and were given an opportunity to be heard. Pursuant to s4 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, an employer is the party who provides the employee with a statement in writing of their wages. The complainant was furnished with payslips and a P60 identifying the third company as the employer. Having considered the submissions of the Complainant, I am exercising my powers under Section 39(2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 and determine that the name of the Respondent shall be altered to the correct name of the employer also trading from the same address. I find the complaint is well founded, and direct payment of 2,801.69 euro gross arrears of wages and 2 weeks wages of 1,131.51 euro compensation by the Respondent. |
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.
I find the complaint is well founded, and direct payment of 2,801.69 euro gross arrears of wages and 2 weeks wages of 1,131.51 euro compensation. |
Dated: 27th November 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Davnet O'Driscoll
Key Words:
S6 of payment of wages act 1991, S39 (2) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 |