ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00031523
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Grainne Farrell-Cooper | Lloydspharmacy Ireland Limited |
Representatives | Mandate Trade Union | Stratis Consulting |
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-00041881-001 | 08/01/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/05/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 8th January 2021, the complainant referred a complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 27th May 2021. The complainant attended the adjudication and was represented by Mandate. The respondent was represented by Brendan McCarthy, Stratis Consulting and three witnesses attended on its behalf.
This adjudication was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
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 seeks payment of a bonus for 2020. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that the complaint related to an unpaid Christmas bonus of €200, which was unilaterally withdrawn by respondent. She said that the bonus would have been paid by way of a voucher. The complainant submitted that she was entitled to the bonus as a term of her contract and that its non-payment amounted to a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act. The complainant referred to case law and the European Convention on Human Rights. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent outlined that in March 2021, it had approved payment of the 2020 bonus to the complainant and other staff. It explained its business circumstances in 2020. The respondent submitted that the bonus scheme was discretionary and not a contractual term; non-payment of a bonus would not amount to a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act. It also submitted that non-payment of the bonus would have been fair and reasonable in the circumstances. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complaint relates to the payment of the €200 bonus for the 2020 trading year in the form of the voucher. The parties confirmed that in the time since the lodging of the complaint the bonus has, in fact, been paid. I note the submissions of the parties regarding whether the complainant was entitled to payment of the bonus as a contractual term, and the other legal issues in the case. However, given that the bonus has, in fact, now been paid, it is not necessary, nor desirable to make findings on these legal issues. I formally declare that the complaint is not well-founded, but this is not a finding on the legal issues, nor an indication of how I would decide should the bonus not have been paid. It reflects that the complaint is now moot, given that the bonus has been paid. |
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.
CA-00041881-001 I decide that the complaint is not well-founded as the bonus, the subject of the complaint, has been paid by the respondent to the complainant. |
Dated: 27th August 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act / bonus |