ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION.
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030509
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Stephen Conboy | Motorland Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
|
|
Representatives | Self. | General Manager |
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-00040892-001 | 10/11/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/07/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
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 Respondent is a car sales company who employed the Complainant from 7th August 2020 to 30th September 2020. At this time the company closed. Prior to the hearing of the complaint the parties were provided with a verbal summary of the Supreme Court judgement in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC [2021] IESC 24. Both parties opined that the hearing could proceed as it was doubtful if any conflicting evidence would be heard during the hearing of the complaint.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant contends that a deduction of €302.68 was made from his wages for an unknown reason. On the last day of work the Complainant spoke to the accounts team who informed him that revenue had deducted the monies.
At the hearing of the complaint the Complainant referred to wage slips that show a deduction of €302.68 under the heading of voluntary deduction.
The Complainant contacted the revenue and they have stated in e-mails that they have no record of this deduction as it was from the employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent informed the hearing that prior to the closure the business was a partnership and he, as one of the former partners, had recently re-opened the business. The Respondent could not offer any explanation as to the reason for the deduction of €302.68 from the Complainant’s wages. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This is very straightforward. The Complainant was not provided with a genuine explanation of why the deduction was made from his wages nor did he authorise any deduction being made from his wages. The complaint is well founded, I now order the Respondent to make the payment of €302.68 to the Complainant within 42 days from the date of this decision. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
As outlined above. |
Dated: 12th August 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act, 1991. |