ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00025192
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A complainant | A Barbershop |
Representatives |
| Sinead Nealon |
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-00031978-002 | 04/11/2019 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00031978-003 | 04/11/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/12/20 & 08/01/2021. 27/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The complainant was employed in the respondent barbershop from 12 November 2018 until 15 July 2019. She was employed two days per week and was paid €200 per week. This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. Hearings on the matters contained herein took place on 16 December 2020 and 08 January 2021. The evidence related to the matters covered by this decision was given during those hearings. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
CA-00031978-002 The complainant submitted that she did not receive a payment in lieu of notice CA-00031978-003 The complainant submitted that she did not receive her final weeks’ pay and that monies were unlawfully deducted from her wages without her prior agreement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that the complainant was paid a week’s pay that was due to her in lieu of notice. The respondent submitted that no unlawful deductions were made from the complainants pay but that she had signed up to the Bike to Work Scheme and that accordingly, it was entitled to retain the funds that it had spent for the complainant under that scheme. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00031978-002 At the hearing of this matter, the complainant confirmed that she did, in fact, receive payment in lieu of notice. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00031978-003 At the hearing of this matter the respondent submitted that under the Bike to Work Scheme it was entitled to retain monies that it had paid out on the complainant’s behalf and that the complainant had signed a written agreement to that effect. The complainant confirmed that she had signed the Bike to Work Scheme agreement and that it allowed the respondent to withhold monies that it had paid out on her behalf. However, she submitted that she did not think the manner in which this was carried out was fair. Having considered the written and oral evidence of both parties, I am satisfied that the respondent did not make unlawful deductions from the complainants pay. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00031978-002 My decision is that this complaint is not well founded. CA-00031978-003 My decision is that this complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 1st October 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of wages Act, No unlawful deductions from pay. |