Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Garden Centre Employee

A Hardware and Garden Centre

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00022559-001

10/10/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00022559-002

10/10/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00022559-003

10/10/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00022559-004

10/10/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00022559-005

10/10/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00022559-006

10/10/2018

The Complainant said that she had no choice but to consider herself as constructively dismissed due to the intolerable behaviour within the Respondent’s workplace leading to a difficult unsafe work environment. She raised a grievance, and nothing was done.

The Respondent denies that there was any intolerable behaviour, work environment or the fact that the Complainant ever raised a grievance. It claims that she left of her own volition.

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s case.

CA-00022559-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Complainant said that she is a florist with more than 20 years’ work experience.

The Complainant said that she was initially employed in the position of Supervisor of the Garden Centre in January 2016 and following a management change in September 2016 she was asked to run the Garden Centre by the then General Manager Mr. X and owner Mr. Y. The Complainant said that in late 2017 Ms. A and her husband Mr. B joined the Respondent’s business. She was unsure of what Ms. A’s remit was. The Complainant said that she held the position in the Garden Centre until Ms. A attempted to side-line her and demote her.

The Complainant said that the work environment became very different and difficult from Ms. A’s arrival. She was constantly questioning things and making unwise decisions on stock and shop arrangements. She was difficult to deal with and had an abrasive manner. The Complainant said that she approached Mr. Y on at least three occasions to highlight this, but nothing was done about it. Ms. A kept trying to make changes and she was getting involved in ordering stock and signing off on items that was causing countless problems.

The Complainant said that in the months preceding her going out on sick leave she made several attempts to notify her grievance to the Respondent, but these attempts were largely ignored, and it culminated with her becoming unwell and stressed and declared unfit for work on 26 May 2018.

She said that she received a letter from Mr. B, manager and husband to Ms. A where she was instructed to meet with him prior to her returning to work from sick leave. She claims that she made efforts to meet with him, but he was always unavailable and did not return her phone calls and accordingly, she was unable to return to work without first meeting with him.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent made no effort to address her grievance prior to her going out on sick leave by an independent impartial person. The Respondent’s only attempt to deal with matters was to appoint the husband of the person she was having difficulties with. The Complainant references the Respondent’s own anti-harassment, bullying and sexual harassment policy document, which she claims she was not provided with until July 2018. She claims that the Respondent failed to follow the procedure and thus demonstrates that it was not taking her grievance seriously. She said that no effort was made to facilitate her return to work.

The Complainant said that the Respondent had no inhouse HR department for her to contact and she tried to communicate with Mr. Y. She said that she was unaware of a policy/procedure setting out what she should do. She said that the Respondent repeatedly failed to engage in written correspondence with her legal representatives and continued to write to her knowing that she was out on sick leave due to stress from work.

The Complainant said that the Respondent sought to engage her in a mediation process with an external HR company, one month after going out on sick leave and three months after raising her grievance. She met with the Mediator and was presented with Ms. A’s written response which she felt the tone of which was confrontational and cold. She informed the Mediator that she was prepared to meet with her as long as she could be accompanied by her own HR Advisor, and that her HR Advisor would meet Ms. A on her behalf, as she was not feeling up to it.

The Complainant said that this is a case of constructive dismissal pursuant to the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977. She must show that her resignation was not voluntary and refers to the appropriate tests as set out in Western Excavating CEE Limited -v- Sharp [1978] ICR 221, the contract test and/or reasonableness test. The Complainant said that her case falls within all the circumstances of that case.

The Complainant said that she never received a copy of her contract, nor was she furnished with any policies or procedures or handbook referred to in the contract of employment. The bullying and harassment policies were only provided to her after the issue arose and the formal complaint process had commenced. She said that she was demoted. She had progressed within the Garden Centre in January 2016, however all that changed when Ms. A joined the Respondent in 2017.

She said that the treatment of how her issues and grievances were ignored which resulted in her becoming ill and as a result being certified unfit for work. She points to the subsequent dealings with the Respondent’s and the Mediator in the flawed mediation attempt. The Complainant said that the Respondent failure to provide her with any bullying and harassment policy and procedure and to then not to follow that procedure is wrong.

The Complainant said that all the Respondent’s written correspondence after she had commenced sick leave reflects the Respondent’s attempts to mend its hand in the lack of fair procedures afforded to her from the time. She had attempted to communicate her grievances prior to that from in and around March 2018.

The Complainant said she was left with no choice but to find herself constructively dismissed due to the intolerable and outrageous behaviour of her Employer. She said that she was demoted, bullied and harassed and her complaints ignored. All fair procedures and principles of natural justice were denied. Matters became so intolerable that she lost all trust and confidence in her employer.

The Complainant presented Mr. X as a witness. He said that he was the general manager prior to Mr. B and said that he promoted the Complainant within the Garden Centre. He said that there was no pay rise but said that was to be looked at, at a later stage.

CA-00022559-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant said that she did not receive a copy of her contract of employment in an appropriate and timely fashion as required under the legislation.

She said that she signed her contract on 15 January 2016 but was never provided with a copy to keep. She claims that she only received a copy of her contract on 3 July 2018 when she requested it from the Respondent.

CA-00022559-003 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant said that she was promoted within the Garden Centre but was not notified in writing of the changes to her terms and conditions of her employment as required under the legislation.

CA-00022559-004 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant said that she and the other members of staff working at the Respondents were asked to forfeit one week’s holidays in January 2016. She claims that this is a breach of the Act.

CA-00022559-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant said that she did not receive sick pay from 28 May 2018 up until the date of termination of her employment.

She also said that she did not get her notice pay of termination of her employment and is seeking same.

The following is a summary of the Respondent’s case.

CA-00022559-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Respondent said that the Complainant was employed as a Garden Centre Employee in the position of General Operative and remained in this position until she resigned. She remained on the same rate of pay throughout her employment. The Respondent denies the Complainant’s claim that she was promoted. It claims that is demonstrated by her pay scale not changing, which would have had to reflect that were she promoted during that time.

The Respondent said that the Complainant was presented with a contract of employment along with all the company policies and procedures on the commencement of her employment, as is the standard practice for all staff. The signed contract of employment makes reference to the “attached” company policies. The company handbook, containing same, was at all times available in the staff canteen for staff.

The Respondent said that the Complainant was an integral part of his team as the business grew. However, as the business developed the owner, Mr. Y, saw the need to employ senior personnel to assist. He employed Ms. A and Mr. B into the management team for their expertise and skills. Ms. A gave specific evidence of her past experience in the retail area. Mr. Y outlined the needs to implement new systems, procedures and training required at the stage in the Respondent’s growth.

The Respondent said that all staff were fully aware that Ms. A was joining the company and the role she was to take up. The Respondent presented notice evidence in this regard. The Respondent said none of the management team were aware of any grievance by the Complainant at any time prior to 28 May 2018 when she approached Mr. Y with a sick certificate and said that she had an issue with Ms A and was certified unfit for work. Mr. Y said that he would look into the issue. Mr. B did say that he was aware that the Complainant had issues with Ms. A and this had been mentioned to him by Mr. Y on occasion.

When Mr. Y presented the medical certificate to the manager, Mr. B, to process. Mr. B said he noted the medical certificate had “stress” as the reason for the Complainant’s absence and he wrote to her to acknowledge that and to invite her to make contact with him prior to returning to work to see what he could do and to offer her support as was the normal expected approach by any manager . The Respondent said that this is the standard process where it tries to sort out any possible difficulties prior to staff returning to work.

Mr. B said he never received any contact from the Complainant or any missed calls. He said that once it was apparent to him, a few days later, that there was a complaint and it was against his wife he stepped back from the process and the Respondent’s HR company was charged to look after the situation in the interests of all parties. Mr. B said that no further communication issued from him because of this connection.

In cross-examination Mr. B did say that he realised that the Complainant and his wife were not getting on and that the Complainant had said “unable to work with (Ms. A) its either her or me” and this was prior to the Complainant going out on sick leave and raising her grievance with Mr. Y.

The Respondent said that it contacted its HR company and requested assistance in resolving the issues raised by the Complainant. The evidence is that the HR consultant had a number of telephone conversations with the Complainant. It claims that it explained and offered her both the informal and formal procedures in June 2018. It claims that its policies were forwarded to her by email dated 11 June 2018. The Complainant was asked what route she would like to peruse by return contact to the HR consultant. The Respondent said that the HR consultant was in contact with the Complainant’s own HR advisor at the time, and both informal and formal procedures were discussed were the HR advisor also.

A mediation meeting was organised for 3 July 2018 where the Complainant was accompanied with her HR advisor and after much discussion, she decided against meeting with Ms. A. Different options were discussed but the mediation failed to materalise and thus failed to resolve the differences. The Respondent said that the formal route was again offered and was available to the Complainant.

The Respondent said that it continued to correspond with the Complainant, which it is entitled to do, to try to resolve what it determined as an internal matter throughout the months of July and August. The Respondent said that when it received a letter of resignation dated 2 August 2018 from the Complainant’s legal representative it wrote back and asked her to rescind her resignation. It said that it again sent on a copy of the Company’s grievance procedures. The Respondent said that the Complainant failed to reply and engage with it any further.

The Respondent in its legal submission referenced the appropriate legal tests that should apply in case of constructive dismissal namely, the contract and reasonableness tests. It also made reference to the decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Case No. UD1126/2014 which applied the tests, where it was found that the Complainant in that case failed to meet the high threshold required. The Respondent said that the same set of facts apply here, where in both cases the Complainant “did not pursue the internal grievances through the relevant procedure”. It also cites other legal authorities in relation to claims where constructive dismissal was determined in favour of the Respondent because the claimants in each case failed to pursue the internal grievances or exhaust same.

CA-00022559-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Respondent said that the Complainant was given a Contract of Employment on commencement of her employment with the Respondent. She was given an opportunity to read and study it and she signed and dated it 15 January 2016. A copy of same was attached in its submissions.

CA-00022559-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The owner of the business, Mr. Y, gave evidence that he never agreed to or sanctioned a promotion for the Complainant. He said no one else has authority to make such a decision. He hired Ms. A and Ms. B into senior roles on the restructuring of the business.

The Respondent said that the Complainant was never promoted to a new role within the Respondent. Therefore, that explains why she does not have a “new” copy of her terms and conditions.

CA-00022559-004 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent said that all members of staff were asked to forfeit one week’s holidays in January 2016 to help the business at its inception. All staff understood the reasons and agreed to that sacrifice back in January 2016.

CA-00022559-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Respondent said that it does not operate a sick pay scheme and referred to the Contract of employment.

CA-00022559-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The Relevant Law

Section 1 of the Unfair dismissal act defines “dismissal”, in relation to an employee, means—

“(b) the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which, because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee, to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer.”

The term “constructive dismissal” is not specifically provided for in the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977. However, it is a term commonly understood to refer to that part of the definition, Section 1(b) of the Act which provides that:

In order to rely upon the provisions of Section 1(b) the Complainant must establish, in the first instance, that there was a termination of her contract of employment. It was not in dispute that the Complainant resigned from her position on 2 August 2018.

The Complainant is claiming that she was constructively dismissed from her position as manager with the Respondent.

As the Complainant is claiming constructive dismissal, the fact of dismissal is in dispute between the parties, and in such circumstances, the onus of proof rests with the Complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the Respondent were such to justify terminating her employment.

The appropriate legal test in respect of constructive dismissal was provided by the UK Court of Appeal in the case of Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd -v- Sharp [1978] 1 All E.R. 713. It comprises of two tests, often referred to as the ‘contract test’ and the ‘reasonableness test’. It summarised the ‘contract test’ as follows: “If the employer is guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any other performance.” The reasonableness test assesses the conduct of the employer and whether it “…conducts himself or his affairs so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so the employee is justified in leaving.”

According to the Supreme Court in Berber -v- Dunnes Stores [2009] E.L.R. 61, it said that “The conduct of the employer complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause and its effect on the employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the employee cannot be expected to put up with it.”

The question which I must decide in the present case is whether, because of the conduct of the Respondent, the Complainant was entitled to terminate her contract of employment.

The Complainant claims that she was totally undermined, was being bullied and harassed by Ms. A so much so that her relationship with Ms. A had broken down beyond repair and she had been reporting that to Mr. Y the owner for some time as she did not know what else she should do, until her position ultimately became untenable and she left on sick leave. She claims that the Respondent’s handling of the situation after she went out on sick leave was so badly flawed that she lost trust in the Respondent and felt she had no alternative but to resign from her employment.

The Respondent disputes the claim of constructive dismissal. It said that it was unaware of the grievances that the Complainant had with Ms. A until she stated so on the same day as she went out on sick leave and she never returned to work. The Respondent said that it handed over responsibility to its HR Advisor to deal with the situation due to the relationship between Ms. A and the rest of management. I note that the Respondent said that both the formal and informal procedures were explained, offered and open to the Complainant. She failed to pursue the formal grievance procedure. The Respondent said that it was in regular contact with her when she decided to resign of her own volition after failing to allow the Respondent to deal with the matter or indeed to raise a formal internal grievance.

It is well established that in advancing a claim for constructive dismissal an employee is required to show that he or she had no option in the circumstances of their employment other than to terminate his or her employment. The notion places a very high burden of proof on an employee to demonstrate that he or she acted reasonably and had exhausted all internal procedures formal or otherwise in an attempt to resolve the grievance with the employers.

The Labour Court has held in the case of Ranchin -v- Allianz Worldwide Care S.A. [UDD1636] that: “In constructive dismissal cases, the Court must examine the conduct of both parties. In normal circumstances a complainant who seeks to invoke the reasonableness test in furtherance of such a claim must also act reasonably by providing the employer with an opportunity to address whatever grievance they may have. They must demonstrate that they have pursued their grievance through the procedures laid down in the contract of employment before taking the step to resign: Conway v Ulster Bank Limited UDA474/1981”.

The Employment Appeals Tribunal held in the case of Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd [UD720/2006] that: “We find that the claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case…In constructive dismissal cases it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair”.

In considering this issue, I am satisfied that the Complainant had signed a copy of her terms and conditions which stated that she was a General Operative and was paid appropriately for that position. The terms and conditions refer to all the policies and procedures ‘as being attached’. I have heard all the evidence and I am satisfied that the Complainant knew what she was signing up to and if she had not seen the attachments, she should have raised that immediately. I prefer the Respondent’s evidence in this matter.

I note the evidence from the parties about the Complainant’s alleged promotion in the Garden Centre. On balance I find it difficult to understand how the Complainant could have moved up two steps of the Respondent’s ladder after such a short period of time there, without any recognition from the owner, and without any remuneration to reward her for the significant step. I prefer the Respondent’s evidence in this matter.

With regard to Ms. A’s alleged behaviour and the Complainant’s grievance. I have heard both sides on this and I accept that there was a difference of opinion and possible unfriendliness/dislike between the Complainant and Ms. A. However, I am unable to identify any substantial evidence that demonstrates that the work environment was so toxic, caused by Ms. A, that it was unworkable and intolerable.

I must say I find Mr. B’s evidence quite enlightening here with his account that there were issues between the Complainant and Ms. A. In particular where he said he had heard that the Complainant said, “it’s either me or her”. I also note Mr. Y’s evidence that the Complainant approached him to complain about Ms. A over “work issues” and Ms. A’s poor decisions and her use of colloquialisms when speaking with the Complainant. I am satisfied, like many workplaces where employees have personality clashes and may even dislike each other, they still have to work side by side professionally and a Manager has to carefully manage that. Disagreeing with a work colleague or disliking a work colleague is a far step from having a genuine grievance against a work colleague on the grounds of perceived bullying and harassment behaviour. I am satisfied that is why Dignity at work procedures are necessary and there is a need to set procedures for all to follow. I am satisfied that such a procedure was available to the Complainant at all times, but she failed to raise a grievance before she left work, and then failed to follow through that procedure to the end prior to her deciding that it was time resign. On the balance of probabilities, I prefer the Respondent’s evidence on these matters.

The Complainant focuses much attention on the HR company’s attempt to resolve the matter via mediation. It was suggested that the Mediator could have used different practices and been more creative to get a resolution. On the contrary, I can place no criticism on how the Mediator/ HR expert conducted its affairs. It had to balance the needs of both parties objectively and fairly within the confines of a voluntary mediation process. The failing to get a successful mediated outcome cannot be considered a failing by either the Respondent or the Mediator. What is demonstrated from this part of the narrative is that once this had failed the Respondent followed up with the Complainant about her options. However, it would appear that she had made her mind up to resign at that stage.

In accordance with the established principles in constructive dismissal cases, I am satisfied that there was an obligation on the Complainant to activate the internal procedures before taking the step to resign from her employment. However, based on the evidence adduced, I do not accept that the Complainant sought to follow that route.

In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has not established that the conduct of the Respondent was such that she had no option but to resign her position. I find that the Complainant did not give the Respondent an opportunity to address her concerns before taking the decision to resign. Accordingly, I find that the Complainant was not constructively dismissed from her employment.

CA-00022559-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant said that she did not receive a copy of her contract of employment in an appropriate and timely fashion as required under legislation. She said that she signed her contract on 15 January 2016 but was never provided with a copy to keep. She claims that she only received a copy of her contract on 3 July 2018 when she requested it from the Respondent.

The Respondent said that she was given a copy of her contract of employment on her commencement of employment. She was given an opportunity to read and study it. She signed and dated it 15 January 2016. A copy was provided in evidence, I note the contract is dated 12 January 2016 and was signed off by the Complainant three days later.   There is no dispute over the signature.

On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the Respondent fulfilled its obligation under the Act, and I am satisfied that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00022559-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant said that she was initially employed in the position of Supervisor of the Garden Centre in January 2016 and further to a management change in September 2016 she was asked to run the Garden Centre. The Complainant claims that this was a promotion by the General Manager at the time. The General Manager attended the hearing and said that she was the supervisor there and he had asked here to look after the Garden centre and in essence promoted her.

The Respondent said that there was no promotion. She was not a supervisor and as can be seen from her contract of employment she was hired as a general operative. She was paid the appropriate rate for the position. She continued to be paid the same rate on the date she terminated her employment. The direct evidence from Mr. Y is that he is the only person who decides on the promotions of staff in his business and he was not consulted on such a decision and did not sanction such a decision. The Complainant continued in her original role that she was employed for, a general operative.

I have heard the evidence of both parties in relation to this. I note the very small size of the team working in the Garden Centre and I find it somewhat peculiar that a three tiered structured of General Operative, Supervisor and Manager of that facility would be required with so few staff in that particular area. I also note the Complainant’s title in her contract of employment. I note that there was no financial incentive sought by the Complainant or negotiated by the Respondent to pay the Complainant for an enhanced ‘management’ role within the company. Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities, I prefer the Respondent’s evidence in this matter and deem that there was no change to Complainant’s terms and conditions so as to place a requirement on the Respondent to provide a new document as per the Act.

I find that the complaint is not well founded

CA-00022559-004 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant said that all members of staff were asked to forfeit one week’s holidays in January 2016 to help the business at its inception. The Respondent said that all staff understood the reasons and agreed to that sacrifice back in January 2016.

I note that this complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commissions on 10 October 2018.

The time limits for submitting claims to the Workplace Relations Commission are set out in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which provides that:

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

I find that herein complaint has been lodged outside the time limit prescribed by Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Accordingly, I find that this claim is not well founded.

CA-00022559-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

The Complainant said that she did not receive sick pay from 28 May 2018 up until the date of termination of her employment.

She also said that she did not get her notice pay of termination of her employment and is seeking same.

The Respondent said that it does not operate a sick pay scheme and referred to the contact of employment.

Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that the Respondent does not operate a sick pay scheme, and this is clearly referred to in the contract of employment. I find that this claim is not well founded

I have found above that the Complainant left her employment of her own volition, and this is not a well-founded case of constructive dismissal. Accordingly, I also find that this claim is not well founded.

CA-00022559-001 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00022559-002 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00022559-003 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00022559-004 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00022559-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Unfair Dismissals Act - Terms of Employment (Information) Act - Organisation of Working Time Act - Payment of Wages Act – not well founded.