ADJ-00024704

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Respondent

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-00031416-001

07/10/2019

The complaint is for non-payment of wages agreed for babysitting as per agreement for the period commencing 18 August 2019 until week ending 5 September 2019. The payment withheld is claimed as €450.

The complainant’s case is that by way of an agreement on August 18th, she was engaged for a three-week period to provide a babysitting service while the respondents usual babysitter was on holidays. They complainant was approached through Facebook and she provided texts showing the initial engagement which she contends was €150 nett per week, regardless of the number of nights worked in a week.

She gave as the dates worked: August 18/19/20/27/28/29. There were other nights cancelled in the two weeks in August.

In the first week in September the first two dates were cancelled at less than two hours notice, one while she was enroute to work. On September 3rd that night was cancelled at 90 minutes notice as were the dates for the remainder of that week.

The complainant provided a series of texts containing arrangements to pay , efforts to secure payment, reasons why the payment was not made when promised. On October 4th having failed to receive any payments, she advised the respondent that she would take the matter further. At that point the Respondent disputed the amount payable.

As he Respondent did not attend, no case was presented on her behalf. The Complainant was asked to set out the reasons given by the respondent at the time as to why the payments were not made. The answers to this question lie within the texts between the parties and relate to explanations around IT problems firstly with the Credit Union and later with a Bank failing to make herself available when there was an agreement with the complainant to call to the house to collect payment.

The complainant has demonstrated that she was employed to provide a service to the respondent and dates on which she worked. She has also demonstrated that the Respondent acknowledged in texts that money was owed but quite simply, that money was not paid. There can be no question therefore of the entitlement to €300 for the first two weeks of the three-week period. A question does arise in relation to payment for the third week of the arrangement. The complainant maintains that the arrangement was that she would be paid the same amount regardless of how many nights she worked and in the event in the third week she did not work. From a text on October 4th-the liability for this third week is disputed with the Respondent saying she was willing to pay two and not three weeks of the agreed rate. Where it is not contested at a hearing, the Complainants evidence around the terms of the agreed arrangement must be afforded the greater credibility when there is no documentation or other evidence to contradict her. Moreover, her records show her work schedule cancelled not only on the day when she was due to work, but within two hours of her starting time at most and while she was on the way to work on September 2nd, 2019. The respondent remains liable for payments where arrangements were in place for the complainant to work on a given day, the short notice given together with the refusal to pay are both a breach of the arrangement described by the Complainant and, equally important, the refusal to pay for those days is not justifiable. The complainant is entitled to the flat weekly payment for each of the three weeks of the agreed contract in the circumstances.

The complaint that €450 properly payable to the complainant was withheld is well founded. The respondent is to pay the complainant €450 nett.

Wages withheld, payment for work cancelled.