ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025237
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Estate Agent | An Estate Agency |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00032115-001 | 11/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant commenced her engagement with the respondent on April 2nd 2019 on a contract for services basis; working from home, earning commission only and making a contribution to overheads. About a month later she was placed on a contract of employment, and a few weeks later set up on payroll. She was not given a contract of employment or a statement of her terms of employment. In due course there was a dispute about commission owed to her and she left the employment. She now claims the outstanding wages and commission owed to her. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent says that the initial engagement was on the basis of a model which is common now in its sector where a person is engaged on a contract and while they are not paid a regular wage they are the beneficiary of unusually high commission rates. After a month or so the complainant sought to have her position regularised by being paid a regular income. The respondent agreed to do so on the basis of a three month trial period. At the end of this trial period he decided to revert to the original high commission, no wage basis. He accepts that neither aspect of this; the fact that it was a trial period or that the trial period had ended was communicated to the complainant and he agrees that some commission is outstanding to her. |
Findings and Conclusions:
To describe what happened in this case as a communication deficit would hardly do it justice, although to the respondent’s credit he did not dispute that the matter should have been much better handled. The absence of any written documentation related to the employment is extraordinary and the respondent would be well advised for the future to take account of relevant employment statutes that were conspicuous by their absence here, although not the subject of a complaint. It was agreed that the complainant is owed €1209.50 and I make my award accordingly. |
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.
Complaint CA-00032115-001 is well founded and I award the complainant €1209.50 subject to normal statutory deductions. |
Dated: 12th June 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Wages, commission. |