ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025570
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Employee | Telecommunications Company |
Representatives | Self | Reidy Associates Solicitors |
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-00032332-001 | 19/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/03/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
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 submits that her employer has not paid her wages for the month of October. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent rejects the complaint. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Complainant has submitted an identical complaint to the WRC pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, ADJ-00026182 CA-00033252-001, which is based on the same set of facts. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is a duplicate ADJ-00026182 CA-00033252-001 and, therefore, is not well founded. |
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 that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 9th September 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marie Flynn
Key Words:
Payment of Wages – duplicate complaint – not well founded |