ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027065
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Tiler | Tiling 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-00034670-001 | 16/02/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/08/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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 is a painter. He started working for the Respondent on the 2nd of September 2019. His employment ended on the 22nd of November 2019. His claim was for wages not received €572.00 and holiday pay not received €503.00.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant resigned from his position.
His claim was that he worked 124 hours in November 2019 and this included overtime.
When he was asked what days he worked over time he said he couldn’t remember the exact days.
He employed a solicitor to write to the Respondent. Following receipt of this letter the Respondent replied saying that his records showed that the Complainant worked 105 hours in November 2019 and not 124 hours. A cheque for €795.16 was furnished to the solicitor being holiday pay of €470.16 and wages due €325.00. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent explained that his taxation agent made a mistake in calculating the wages. Eighty hours were due to the Complainant which amounted to €1,040.00 gross. Payslips were furnished for all periods. I reviewed the records kept by the Respondent and while not strictly in compliance with the Organisation of Working Time (Records) (Prescribed Form and Exemptions) Regulations 2001 they did record what staff were working and when. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondents working time records were not strictly in compliance with the Organisation of Working Time (Records) (Prescribed Form and Exemptions) Regulations 2001.
Despite same, he did have some records and on the basis of same I found the evidence of the Respondent to be more credible. His calculation was that the Complainant had worked 105 hours. This was paid to the Complainant less deductions in accordance with the payslip. The holiday pay due has also been paid to the Complainant prior to the hearing.
There was no reference to overtime claim in the correspondence from the Complainant’s solicitor.
|
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.
The complaint is not well founded.
|
Dated: 16th November, 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Outstanding wages overtime. |