ADJ-00032771

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Colin Prior

Temple Recruitment

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Warehouse Operative

A Recruitment Agency

Representatives

Not represented

Did not attend the hearing

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-00043422-001

06/04/2021

The complainant commenced working for the respondent on November 12th 2020.  He was a warehouse operative in a parcel distribution company, but he was directly employed by the respondent, a recruitment agency.  On the form he submitted to the WRC, the complainant said that he was paid €488 per week and that he worked 40 hours a week, an hourly rate of €12.20.  His complaint is that he did not get paid for the week of January 18th to 22nd 2021 during which he worked for 42 hours.

The complainant said that he left the employment of the respondent in mid-June, when he was offered a job directly with the warehouse where he works.

The complainant presented evidence in advance of the hearing which shows where he was for 42 hours during the week of January 18th to 22nd.  At the hearing, he said that he handed in his timesheet to the office in the place where he worked in respect of the 42 hours that he worked that week.  He said that he expected to be paid on January 29th, but he got no wages.  He contacted the payroll office of his employer, and he was informed that the warehouse did not confirm the hours that he worked.  On the morning of this hearing, the complainant received a text message from his former employer in which he was notified that a payment of €245.79 had been transferred to his bank account.  He confirmed to me that the €245.79 had been paid; however, he claims that he worked for the full week of January 18th to 22nd 2021 and that he is owed wages for 42 hours.

The respondent did not attend the hearing which took place at 11.30am on July 22nd 2021.  At 9.30am, a member of the respondent’s staff sent an email to the WRC stating that they had paid the complainant the wages he was due and that they would not attend the hearing.

The complainant’s evidence is that he earned €488 per week and that he worked for 42 hours during the week of January 18th to 22nd 2021 and that he got no wages.  He confirmed to me that he received a payment of €245.79 on the morning of this hearing.

Aside from the respondent’s failure to pay the complainant his wages when they were due, it is disrespectful to the him, and to the WRC, not to attend the remote hearing of this complaint, when, it would not have been inconvenient to do so.

I find that, on January 29th 2021, the complainant was entitled to wages of €512.40 ((€488 ÷ 40) x 42).  The payment of €245.79 which was transferred to his bank account on July 22nd 2020 leaves an amount due to him of €266.61.

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, as amended, I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount.  As he was on low wages, the only deductions would have been a small amount for USC.  I decide therefore, that the respondent is to pay the complainant a further amount of €250.00.

Shortfall in wages