ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035144
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Tudor Madan | Noble Fitout Ltd |
Representatives | Self | Gordon Low – Accountant for the Respondent |
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-00046287-001 | 17/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/07/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
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.
On 29 April 2022 the matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. The hearing was attended by the complainant and Mr Dumitru Dobos and Mr Gordon Low the respondent’s accountant. Ms Antonia Albu attended the hearing to provide interpretation services, under oath, to the complainant. The hearing on 29 April 2022 was adjourned. The hearing was scheduled to resume in person on 08 July 2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of either the complainant or the respondent on 08 July 2022.
Background:
The complainant is a labourer and worked for the respondent company as a contractor for one week from 05 to 12 June 2021. He worked for 49 hours and was due payment of €1,176. He claimed he had not been paid and he submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 17 September 2021.
The respondent confirmed the complainant had worked as a sub-contractor but as he had not provided an invoice to the accounts payable department, as required, it was not possible to register the sub-contractor on Revenue for RCT and transfer the subsequent net payment to the sub-contractor.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted on the complaint form that he had worked for the respondent from 05 to 12 June 2021. He worked 49 hours and was due payment of €1,176 on 22 June 2021. He had been called to do the job by Andrei Cadar who was to have arranged for the invoice to be sent to the respondent. As the complainant did not receive the payment due to him, he submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 17 September 2021. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s position was that the complainant had worked as a sub-contractor. The respondent required all sub-contractors to submit individual invoices to the company’s accounts payable department, who in turn register the sub-contractor and their invoice on Revenue for RCT and then transfer the subsequent net payment to the sub-contractor. The complainant was requested on numerous occasions to submit an invoice to the company accountant but, no such invoice was submitted. Therefore, the company was unable to make payment. The respondent contended it was happy to supply the sub-contractor with the company’s invoice template. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00046287-001 Complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 At the hearing on 29 April 2022 the complainant stated that he had not received payment from the respondent for work he did in June 2021. The respondent’s accountant explained that payment had not been made as the complainant had not submitted an invoice as required. He offered to provide a copy of the invoice template to the complainant. Payment could only be processed if a proper invoice was received by the respondent. The hearing was adjourned to allow time for the proper document to be submitted. The hearing was scheduled to resume in person on 08 July 2022. In advance of the hearing, I wrote to the complainant to check if he wished to proceed with the hearing. I did not receive a reply. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant or the respondent on 08 July 2022. I am satisfied that both parties were on notice of the date and time of the hearing. As the complainant did not attend the hearing scheduled for 08 July 2020 to pursue his complaint, I find that the complaint is 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-00046287-001 Complaint submitted under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act,1991 The complainant attended the first hearing on 29 April 2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complaint or the respondent at the resumed hearing on 08 July 2022. As the complainant did not appear to pursue his complaint on 08 July 2022, I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 17/08/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Key Words:
Payment of Wages No appearance at hearing |