ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00029553
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Daniel McLaughlin | Screenguard Ireland Limited |
Representatives | No attendance | Paul Colton |
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-00039511-001 | 31/08/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/09/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) 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 complaint relates to wages received from the employer in the period April to August 2020 inclusive during which the Complainant received pay through a combination of the TWSS and a top-up payment by the Respondent. From the complaint form it appears that the Complainant was contending that he was in receipt of less than the minimum wage for hours worked and less than his contracted pay by reference to his nett pay prior to the emergency payment scheme introduced to provide support to employers and employees during Covid. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend the hearing. When there was no response to the emails regarding the arrangements for the remote hearing, the host for the hearing rang the Complainant on September 16th the day before the hearing. She advised that the phone rang out and there was no responding call from the Complainant. A period of thirty minutes was allowed on the morning of the hearing to facilitate the Complainants attendance. He did not attend. Following the hearing- the undersigned was advised by staff in the WRC of an email sent by the Complainant at 8.12 am on the morning of the hearing but not received by the case officer until after the hearing was due to commence at 9.30. In that email the Complainant appeared to be complaining about supporting documentation submitted by the Respondent on separate emails and issued to the Complainant on September 15th and 16th 2021. In his email the Complainant said: ‘I thought it was challenging enough to get my head around the fact that a statement made by Paul Colton in November 2020 too almost 10 months to get to me (This refers to a statement from the Respondent submitted in November 2020 and issued to the Complainant in July 2021). If that were not bad enough I am now bombarded with email after email on the eve of our collective meeting. I am sure you will understand how this makes me feel, second class citizen doesn’t even come close! I have not even had an opportunity to open the attachments let alone take into account Paul Coltons November 2020 statement. For these reasons I do not think it would be appropriate for me to attend this mornings meeting. Should you need me to complete more forms to express this officially, please feel free to let me know. You might advise a rescheduled date.’ The role of an Adjudication Officer is to hear disputes/complaints delegated to her or him and to issue decisions. That was the purpose of the hearing scheduled for September 17th at 9 30 am. And the primary purpose of the hearing is just that-to hear the case being presented by each party. There can be occasions when hearings are postponed through the application of very clear guidelines and there are occasions when hearings are adjourned by an Adjudication Officer on the day of the hearing to allow for presentation of further evidence consistent with fair procedures. However, it is not for one side to decide unilaterally not to attend and then expect the hearing to be rescheduled. And furthermore, to inform the WRC of such a decision outside of office hours on the morning of the hearing is unreasonable. Acknowledging there was delay before the Complainant received the statement of November 2020, the file shows the document was sent to him on July 21st 2021, some two months before the hearing date. The later material submitted by the Respondent contains no legal arguments and includes emails sent by the Complainant and would be known to him. To be clear, if the Respondent does not attend for reasons which have been accepted in advance of a hearing or simply does not attend, the Adjudication Officer can then proceed to hear the evidence of the Complainant and decide the matter. There is no question of a second-class citizen approach to these matters. The proper place to seek an adjournment or an opportunity to consider late documentation was at the hearing. However, the Complainant was obliged to attend and present his case. The Complainant in this instance was properly notified of the hearing and chose not to attend. There was no evidence presented in support of the complaint.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As there was no evidence presented by the Complainant at the hearing, the Respondent was not obliged to present their evidence. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complainant chose not to attend the hearing to set out the basis of the complaint, the complaint is deemed to be not well-founded. |
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-00039511-Payment of Wages Act 1991. The complaint brought by Daniel McLaughlin against Screenguard Ireland Ltd is not well founded. |
Dated: 21st September 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Key Words:
TWSS -underpayment of wages |