ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021045
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Legal Executive | A Firm of Solicitors |
Representatives | In person | Cathal O Carrain B.L. |
Complaint:
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-00027559-001 | 05/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/10/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following 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 by the respondent as a Legal Executive from 5th November 2018 until 15th March 2019. The complaint was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) on 5th April 2019 and relates to the non-payment of fees relating to an Interpretation Service provided by the complainant. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant contends that she acted as an Interpreter for clients of the respondent but was not paid for this service. The complainant stated that she agreed a rate of €45 per hour and provided approximately 45 hours of Interpretation Services to a number of individual clients. The complainant contends that she should have been paid at the time she provided the service. The complainant contends she is owed approximately €2,100. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepts that the complainant provided the services although it contends the total number of hours are 42.5 and not 45 as stated by the complainant. The rate of pay for the provision of Interpretation Services is also agreed at €45 per hour. The respondent contends that it does not pay directly for the Interpreter at the time the service is provided. The respondent stated that on the provision of an Invoice, the Interpreter receives the appropriate fee at the conclusion of the client’s legal case with the respondent when and if the fee becomes payable depending on the success of the case and settlements etc. The respondent outlined that if an itemised Invoice is submitted by the complainant, for the total number of hours, she would receive payment in line with the normal practice. The respondent also requires the complainant to provide the details of a Brazilian Solicitor whom she knows personally and who may be able to assist in the provision of services going forward. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I note that the rate of pay of €45 per hour is agreed between the parties. The complainant stated that she had provided a total of 45 hours whereas the respondent contends that it was 42.5 hours as outlined on the WRC complaint form. I note that the complainant had one client in Brazil that she spoke to via email and What’s App and had not yet clarified the number of hours provided. However, on the basis of the complaint submitted, I find that the complainant has confirmed the provision of 42.5 hours of Interpretation Services. At the adjudication hearing, it was agreed between the parties that the complainant would submit a detailed invoice to the respondent and the complainant would then be paid at the end of each individual client’s legal case with the respondent if fees were payable at that time. The complainant agreed to provide the details of the Brazilian Solicitor to the respondent. Having considered the matter and notwithstanding the agreement reached between the parties, the legislation covers wages (including fees) that are “properly payable” to the complainant. The fees in question are not yet properly payable and depend on the outcome of each individual case. Any future breach of the legislation will only arise if the respondent does not discharge fees to the complainant if and when they are due for payment. Any breach that does arise can be referred to the WRC for adjudication at that point in time. In conclusion and as the complaint was submitted prior to the fees being properly payable to the complainant, I find that the respondent has not breached the legislation as claimed. |
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.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 1st September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Key Words:
Payment of Wages, Fees |