ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00014633
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A video Production Employee. | A video production company. |
Representatives |
|
|
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-00019011-001 | 08/05/2018 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 | CA-00019013-001 | 08/05/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991following 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.
Background:
The Complainant worked for the Respondent company from 24th April 2017 until the 6th March 2018, when his employment ended because of the decision of the Respondent to close the business. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says that he is owed unpaid wages including, from the Respondent. He says that the total amount due to him is €4,532.19 net. He says that this due amount was confirmed to him by the Respondent. He says that the company is not insolvent. This was a decision of the Respondent, not to declare insolvency. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent agrees with the submission from the Complainant. He says that he agrees that the amount claimed is owed by him to the Complainant. He says that he is currently gathering monies due to the company with a view to paying the Complainant and other employees what they are owed. In response to questions from me he advised that there were sufficient funds in the company’s bank account to discharge the debt to the Complainant and other former employees, but that he needed to take advice if these funds were immediately available for this purpose. He agreed that if we adjourned the hearing until Monday the 1st October 2018 that he would be in a position to confirm when the monies due would be paid to the Complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
We resumed the hearing on Monday the 5th October 2018 and the Respondent advised that he would be paying the monies due to the Complainant and others and would do so on or before the 5th October 2018. I have since been advised by the Complainant that the Respondent reneged on the commitment given. It is clear, and agreed between the parties, that the monies claimed are due to the Complainant. The complaint under the Redundancy Payments Act, 1969 is not valid, as the complainant does not have sufficient service to qualify for a Redundancy payment. |
Decision:
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.
Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 – 2012 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under the Act.
I find for the Complainant and I say that he must be paid the agreed amount of €4,532.19 net, by the Respondent and that this must be done within 7 days of receipt of this decision. |
Dated: 25th February 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis
Key Words:
|