ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference:
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | A Bakery |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint(s):
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
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 from 13th of April 2019 to 6th of May 2019. The Complainant referred complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 6th of June 2019 alleging the Respondent had breached the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – 2015. The complainant also submitted a complaint under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. The respondent was not in attendance and was not represented at the hearing and no explanation was provided for the non-attendance. I am satisfied that the respondent received notification of the date and time of the hearing. |
CA-00028896-001 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she was employed by the respondent from 13th of April 2019 to 6th of May 2019 On the termination of employment, she should have received €247.94 in unpaid wages the respondent told her that her wages would be paid but this did not happen. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was not in attendance and was not represented at the hearing and no explanation was provided for the non-attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 – 2015 provides as follows – “Where – (a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with the Act), or (b) none of the wages that are properly payable to the employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion”. The complainant has claimed that she is owed €247.94 in unpaid wages by the respondent. The complainant advised the hearing that she had been employed by the respondent from the 13th of April 2019 to the 6th of May 2019. The complainant stated that she was let go on the 6th of May and that the explanation given to her by the respondent was that a contract had fallen through. The complainant told the hearing that she was owed wages at the time she was let go and that the respondent had told her that she would be paid. The complainant told the hearing that she had again contacted the respondent on the 16th of May asking about her unpaid wages and that she was again told that she would be paid. The complainant stated that she never received the outstanding wages. I am also satisfied that the observations of Ms. Justice Finley Geoghan in the case of Sean Senan Histon -v- Shannon Foynes Port IEHC292 are applicable wherein she stated (in considering Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991: - “It does not appear to me arguable that a failure to pay the Plaintiff any part of his salary is not a deduction from his salary within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act of 1991” I am satisfied, based on the evidence adduced that the Complainant is owed the wages outlined by her and that the non-payment of these wages amounts to a deduction within the meaning of the Act and accordingly I declare this claim to be well founded. Pursuant to section 6(1)(b) of the Payments of Wages Act, as amended, I consider it reasonable in these circumstances to award the amount of the unlawful deduction plus €100 in compensation, i.e. a total of €347.94. |
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 to be well-founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant the amount of €347.94 |
CA-00028896-004 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that she was employed by the respondent from 13th of April 2019 to 6th of May 2019, she did not receive any contract or statement of her terms of employment. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was not in attendance and was not represented at the hearing and no explanation was provided for the non-attendance. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts [1994-2019] states that “an employer shall, not later than 2 months after the commencement of an employee’s employment with the employer, give or cause to be given to the employee a statement in writing containing…particulars of the terms of the employee’s employment”. Section 3 (4) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts [1994-2019] states that “A statement furnished by an employer under subsection (1) shall be signed and dated by or on behalf of the employer”. This section, as amended by ss.3 and 7 of the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2018, specifies the particulars of the terms of employment which an employer must give in writing to an employee. Furthermore subsection 3 (1A) now requires that part of this statement, containing certain core terms of employment, must be provided within the first 5 days of starting a job. In addition, an employee must have at least one month’s continuous service with that employer in order to bring a claim under Section 3 (1 A). The complainant in the present case advised the hearing that she was employed by the respondent from 13th of April 2019 to 6th of May 2019. The complainant at the hearing confirmed that she was employed by the respondent for less than a month. Based on the evidence adduced I am satisfied that the Complainant in the present case did not have the required one month’s service to pursue a complaint under Section 3(1A) and accordingly I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
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.
I declare this claim to be not well founded. |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Key Words:
Section 3(1A), Miscellaneous Provisions |