ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00027679
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Louise Byrne | JWHA Consulting Engineers |
Representatives | none | none |
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-00035371-001 | 22/03/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/04/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
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 WRC sent notice of the hearing to both parties on 13 March 2021. The respondent replied from another email address requesting all correspondence be sent to that address. The hearing notice email was attached, so I assume he had received it and was aware of the hearing. On 22 April he was asked to send a list of attendees for the hearing. He then said he was unaware of the hearing. He was sent copies of the hearing notification. A postponement request sent earlier in April was refused. On 27 April 2021 the respondent requested a postponement of the hearing scheduled for 29 April 2021 because he was unaware of the hearing. The request was refused as it was considered he knew the details of the hearing and had given no other reason to postpone the hearing. Furthermore, the respondent still had two days before the hearing, was fully aware of the claims being made and would suffer no prejudice if the hearing proceeded. The respondent indicated to the WRC he would not be attending the hearing, which he did not. For the reasons given above I proceeded with the hearing. At the start of the hearing I explained the implications of a recent Supreme Court judgement in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC. This meant hearings are now held in public and decisions will not be anonomised. I also clarified that evidence should be taken on oath where there is a conflict in that evidence. I told the complainant I would be prepared to continue with the hearing without evidence being taken on oath but I would consider what to do if a conflict arose. The complainant confirmed she understood what I had said and that she was happy to continue with the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant worked for the respondent from 23 October 2019 until 21 January 2020. She worked 4 hours per day on Monday to Friday (20 hours per week) at €13 per hour. She resigned from the employment.She submits when she left that she was not paid for one week in December; amounting to 20 hours at €13 per hour; a total of €260. Also, that she received no holiday pay during the period of her employment and is owed €225.16 (a figure she says was confirmed by the respondent but not paid by him). And, she was not paid for three Public Holidays, Christmas Day, St Stephens Day and New Years Day, during a period (from 23 December 2019 to 5 January 2020) when the respondent was closed, and she was not paid; amounting to €156. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing and made no written submission. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I accept the complainant’s evidence, both direct evidence to the hearing and supporting documentation. I find she is owed a total €641.16. |
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.
For the reasons given above I find the complaint is well founded and I award the complainant €641.16 |
Dated: 14th May 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Hugh Lonsdale
Key Words:
Payment of wages well founded |