Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Simon  Mcauley

Iam Valero Money Holdings Limited T/A Global Munii Holdings Ltd

Representatives

  Self

 No attendance

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-00045521-001

03/08/2021

This case is concerned with non-payment of wages at the end of January 2021 amid repeated assurances that the withheld payments would be made together with a complaint regarding non-payment of holiday pay on termination

The Complainant gave evidence. He commenced employment with the Respondent on November 9th, 2020. In December the Respondent reported difficulties securing investment and the employees were given an extended Christmas break to give the Respondent breathing space. They were informed that the additional days off would not be deducted from their annual leave entitlements. The Complainant returned to work in January. At the end of January there was a delay in paying wages at the end of the month. They were informed this would be rectified but that did not happen and then they were placed on lay-off in a letter dated February 2nd, 2021. In that letter the employees were informed ‘that onreceipt of the first tranche of funding from Goldshield, Munii will re-imburse you for your lost wages during the term of your lay-off, including any outstanding wages for January 2021.’

The letter also stated ‘Munniis promise will also stay in effect up to the date of terminationhaving found another job.’

The amount claimed was €6000 nett in wages and €1800 in holiday pay based on 22 days per annum. The Complainant was on a very low tax deduction at the time.

The situation continued until April in around April 24th, 2021. During the intervening period the remaining employees were told that the investor/funder did not want to fund the shortfall in wages during the lay-off. Then on April 15th on a Teams meeting they were told that the money would be in place to pay them on Monday 19th. He spoke to a named manager who expressed a concern that if the money were not in place by the following Monday-it would never arrive. The money did not arrive and after that the Complainant decided to leave.

When he first submitted a complaint form to the WRC he ticked the box seeking an inspection in error. When he did not hear anything from the WRC he contacted the service and was informed that the complaint was in hand. When he rang again he was informed of his error and was advised to submit a further complaint form seeking adjudication which he did 3rd August 2021. He then received correspondence from the WRC saying that as his complaint was submitted outside of the six-month period he would have to seek an extension and provide an explanation for the delay-which he did, seeking the extension and explaining at the hearing  what had happened re the complaint form.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Documentation relating to the complaint was issued by post over a period of months up to and including the notice and then by email the link for the hearing. The staff member organising the remote hearing rang the name and number provided by the Complainant and left a message. He received no reply but prior to the hearing, advised that he is satisfied that the number was that of Mr Lee Travers. The information available from the staff of the WRC  indicates that the Respondent was properly informed of the complaint and that every reasonable effort was made to ensure that he was aware of the hearing date and time and was provided with access to the remote hearing.

There was no evidence or any other information to contest the evidence of the Complainant.

There is nothing to suggest that the business is dissolved.

The first issue to be considered is the time limit which was raised by the WRC prior to the hearing. That this issue arose for consideration is based on the dates contained on the complaint form where the Complainant gave as his date of termination 01/02/2021. This is not correct. The date of termination was in or around April 24th, 2021 according to his evidence at the hearing. That date means that in respect of the holiday pay element, the complaint was well within the six-month period expressed in section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act. Regarding the wages for January 2021-the Complainant accepted in principle the deferred payment of that amount on the basis of the terms of the letter of February 2nd and the Teams meeting at that time where the assurances regarding payment of wages for January  were in place up to the date of leaving the employment. On the basis of the commitments and the implied agreement, the correct date for the deduction or non-payment or payment withheld was the date of termination of employment which I am fixing as April 23rd, 2021 being the Friday after the last date promised i.e. Monday April 19th. Nothing turns on whether this is the exact date as a week earlier or later would make no difference in the matter of the time limit under Section 6.

The Complainant is entitled to his wages and holiday pay withheld.

CA-00045521 Payment of Wages Act 1991

The complaints under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 are well founded. The Respondent is to pay Simon McAuley €7800 nett comprising pay and holiday pay withheld from him.

Wages withheld/holiday pay on termination