Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ana  Lacramioara Manciu

Stablefield Limited

Representatives

Sharon Dillion Lyons BL instructed by Arthur Cox Solicitors

Rachel O’Flynn BL instructed by O'Donoghue & Associates Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000

CA-00043693-001

21/10/2016

The hearing was conducted remotely in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant swore an affirmation and gave evidence at the hearing.

The complaint was submitted by the Complainant to the Workplace Relations Commission on 21 October 2016. The Complainant claims that she did not receive the National Minimum Rate of Pay. Her pay reference period was monthly with the latest date of pay date on which she alleges the payment received was less than the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 was 7 August 2016. The Complainant stated in the Complaint Form that she did request, by way of registered post, a statement of her average hourly rate of pay for the pay reference for a period on 16 September 2016, but it was not furnished after four weeks as required by Section 24 (a) (2) in advance of making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. The Complaint Form was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission after the expiry of the four week period on 21 October 2016.

The Complainant’s wages were stated in the Complaint Form at the time of the end of her employment on 5 August 2016 was €2,093.00 gross per month working 85 hours per week.

It was confirmed by the Respondent’s Counsel that the correct registered name and address was stated on the Complainant Form.

On 1 June 2021 this matter first came before me and it was expressly agreed by both the Complainant’s Counsel and Respondent’s Senior Counsel that submissions would be filed by the Respondent within a period of three weeks of 1 October 2021 with the Complainant’s replying submission due three weeks from 22 October 2021. A letter issued to the parties from, dated 29 June 2021, reiterating what was agreed at the hearing on 1 June 2021. The Respondent did not file its submission, dated 23 December 2021. The Complainant submitted supplementary submissions on 14 January 2022.  The parties were requested to open their submissions to allow the other party to follow the arguments made and be in a fair position to adequately respond.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction which I intend to deal with in the first instance.

Preliminary Objection

Referral of Complaints by the Director General to an Adjudication Officer and Workplace Relations Commission Inspector’s Investigation Report :

It was submitted by Counsel for the Complainant that Section 24 (2) (b) does not deprive of an Adjudication Officer of investigating a claim for underpayment where the Respondent is subject to an Inspection by the Workplace Relations Commission. An investigation of itself is insufficient to meet the criteria of Section 24 (2) (b). The key component in the subsection is that jurisdiction is deprived where the matter subject of the investigation pursuit to Section 33 or 34 or a prosecution is subject to Section 35 is in respect of the same alleged “under-payment”. It was submitted that there was no evidence that the Inspector’s investigations pursuant to Section 33 or 34 or the prosecution pursuant to Section 35 of the Act concerned the same alleged underpayment or any underpayment. With reference to the Respondent’s argument that the Inspector’s Investigation Report wherein the Inspector states; “Icarried out my inspection for a complaint under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000, from former Employee Ana Lacramioara Manciu.” The complaint lodged by the Complainant on 17 August 2006 did not seek inspection of a Section 24 complaint but sought Adjudication only of the matter. The only request for inspection made by the Complainant in that complaint form in relation to the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 is that she did not receive a statement of her average hourly rate of pay. That is a matter which may be investigated pursuant to Section 23(6), not Section 24. It was further noted that the Inspection Report only details an inspection in relation to Section 23 which then culminated in a prosecution under section 23(6).

Mansion House Ltd t/a Fado Restaurant v Jose Izquierdo, MWD043

The Complainant relied heavily on the Labour Court decision in Mansion House Ltd t/a Fado Restaurant v Jose Izquierdo, MWD043 wherein it was submitted was a similar case where  Section 24 (2) (b) was discussed in detail. It was highlighted by the Complainant that although the same factual matrix as between the parties may have been subject to an inspection, there was no evidence of an inspection of a complaint pursuant to section 24 and accordingly the Court was not deprived of jurisdiction in determining the complaint before it.

It was further submitted  that it is unequivocally the case that there has been no inspection nor prosecution in respect of an underpayment. Consequently, the Complainant submitted that the Adjudication Officer in this complaint has full jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter.

It was noted in response to the Respondent’s argument that the Workplace Relations Commission in its correspondence has not denied that it acted unlawfully, the Complainant referred to the WRC letter sent to the Respondent dated 7 October 2021 which does expressly deny the assertions made by the Respondent.

Res Judicata

The Complainant submitted that it was unclear where the Respondent was going with this argument. It was accepted there was reference to Section 24 in the Adjudication Decision of 1 March 2017 involving the same parties and it was correct that the matter was not properly before the Adjudication Officer on that occasion. However, it was not correct that the reason it was not properly before her was due to the existence of the investigation by an Inspector but because a statement of the Complainant’s average hourly rate of pay was not sought. Therefore, there was a procedural defect. This is the reason this complaint was not appealed. Any criticism made of the Complainant or not appealing the Workplace Relations Commission Decision of 1 March 2007  by the Respondent was “particularly curious” in light of the findings of the Labour Court in the Mansion House decision. It was submitted that the Complainant complied with Section 23 and completed a Complaint Form which allowed for her Sections 24 complaint to be properly heard before the Workplace Relations Commission.

It was noted by Counsel for the Complainant that Respondent was incorrect in its submission that the Complainant appealed all the complaints which were the subject of the Adjudication Decision of 1 March 2017. Only the complaints she did not succeed in were appealed under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

Estoppel and Delay

It was submitted that the Workplace Relation Commission has no jurisdiction to decide on such matters. The only issue at hearing in relation to jurisdiction was whether the Adjudication Officer has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 24 of the 2000 Act.

Substantive Issue

Background

The Complainant was initially employed as a mushroom picker on 10 December 2012 and through a series of promotions held the position of Harvest Manager when she left her employment in 2016. She gave evidence that she and her husband came from Romanian to work with the Respondent and had little English. The Complainant was not provided with a contract of employment until she requested same in the summer of 2013.

The contract of employment was opened with specific reference to the following:

“HOURS OF WORK

Your normal hours of work are variable per week. Your start/finish times and working days will vary in accordance with the needs of the business. You will receive at least one day off a week. You may be required to work additional hours when authorised and as necessitated by the needs of the business.

REMUNERATION

Your minimum wage is currently E1600 per month payable monthly in arrears by credit transfer as detailed on your pay statement. Your earnings above this are determined by you attaining certain criteria as determined by the Company and notified to you separately. Work for Sunday is included in your rate of pay.”

It was her sworn evidence that from the first day of work she was surprised that she was required to work until 10pm. She was informed by the other employees at the time that this was the way things worked and it did not matter how many hours she worked , the focus was on the number of kilos of mushrooms she picked. She subsequently found out that for each kilo she picked she was given 30c which was later increased to 33c. However, the volume picked depended on the size of the mushrooms, so the time required to pick a kilo of small mushrooms was significantly more than the time required to pick large mushrooms. The Respondent’s focus was always on productive and not hours worked and therefore, the Complainant said she would only record kilos picked in her own note book and never took note of hours worked.

The Complainant gave evidence of her promotion to Trainer and then to Supervisor before being promoted to Harvest Manager. It was her evidence that with each promotion the list of tasks and duties increased so she was still responsible for cleaning, training, administration and picking as well as being Harvest Manager. As  a result, her hours continued to work long hours with a start time of between 6am – 6.20am as she would be required to be on site before the Pickers who started at 6.30am. Her work day continued until between 9.15 – 9.30pm when the last Picker left the workplace as she was required to do a final check before closing for the night. The Complainant gave evidence that she worked 6 – 7 days a week. With each promotion she was given an additional €200 gross per month. From the time she was promoted in Summer 2013 she was given a set wage of €1,600 gross per month with her monthly wage increasing to €2,093.00 gross per month for 85 hours per week at the end of her employment.

The Complainant opened her payslip and explained in great detail the process around receiving payslips from the Respondent. Part of her role was to call the employees to the office where they would be requested to sign two pages; the first with their payslip which only contained reference to their pay and statutory tax deductions and the second page which appeared blank, but she subsequently discovered contained a detail of hours worked per week. This page was entitled pay analysis and it was only when Respondent, Tom Sweeney’s sister and person responsible for payroll, was on annual leave did the Complainant discover what was detailed on the second page. Prior to this she gave evidence that the Respondent would hold their hand on the page on the desk, so the employee was unable to see or review that hours of work.

What surprised the Complainant when she was able to review the second page was the hours of work did not reflect the actual hours worked; they were significantly less than the hours worked.

It was her evidence that by way of example that she looked at her husband’s hours of work it was clear that where he picked 1,000 kilos of mushrooms it would be divided by 30c which would amount to 30 hours per week with an hourly wage of €9 per hour. However, this could not be further from the reality. At this time, the Complainant herself was on a fixed monthly wage and therefore, her wage were not calculated per kilo.  

The Complainant opened screen shots of the clock in and out times  and it was her evidence that these working hours were regularly, if not daily, altered by Mr Sweeney. There were four connected computers, including the one used for the employee clock in and out system, one in her office and the main computer in Mr Sweeney’s office which had TeamViewer installed in it. This allowed Mr Sweeney not only to constantly monitor the work being undertaken by the employee but amend their work. It was the Complainant’s evidence that she could see in real time Mr Sweeney amending the clock out times of employees, including her own, to reflect a much shorter working day.

This is of particular relevance to the clock in and out system and the screen shots presented. Using the example of 5 February 2015, the screen shot displayed a clock in time of 06.05 and clock out at 21.56 with 70 minutes automatically deducted for breaks. This amounts to total working hours of 15 hours and 12 minutes.

The other dates presented in evidence by the Complainant:

·       7 February 2015 her clock in time is recorded as 06.15 to 21.02 which equals a working day of 14 hours and 47 minutes.

·       28 July 2016: no start time but a finish time of 21.12

·       4 August 2016: start time of 06.19 and clock off time of 19.06 which equals a working day of 12 hours and 47 minutes.

In contrast a monthly  pay analysis of hours for the period from 26 January 2015 – 22 February 2015 records 6.58 hours worked on 5 February 2015, 6.68 hours worked on 6 February 2015 and 6.77 hours on 7 February 2015. It was the Complainant’s evidence that this pay analysis was the “second sheet” which she was asked to sign by the Respondent on a monthly basis but never had sight of the details it contained. It was this falsified pay analysis sheet that was kept by the Respondent for the purposes of demonstrating his compliance with employment legislation around pay and working hours.

In terms of hourly wage, it was submitted into evidence that the Complainant’s wages fell below the national minimum wage hourly rate. The Complainant was paid an average hourly rate of between €4.06 to €4.65 to €5.55 to €6.17 over the course of her employment. During this period the national minimum wage in July 2011 was set at €8.65 and increased to €9.15 on 1 January 2016.

The Complainant relied on the Labour Court decision in O’Leary International Limited v. Viktors Gurkovs (MWA 12/24); “[The] Act was enacted to establish a national minimum rate of pay which is expressed in terms of a rate applicable to every hour worked ”.

A statement of her average hourly rate of pay was sought by registered post on 16 September 2016 but the Respondent did not provide a copy of same within the period of four weeks as required by Section 23 of the 2000 Act.

Preliminary Objection  - Respondent

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the attendance of the Solicitor and Counsel for the Respondent were only in attendance to objection to my jurisdiction to hear this complaint. There was no witness from the Respondent present.

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent submitted the following arguments objecting to my jurisdiction to hear and decide on this complaint:

Referral of Complaints by the Director General to an Adjudication Officer.

The Director General did not have the jurisdiction to refer the complaint to me where the matter had been previous being investigated by the Inspectorate of the Workplace Relations Commission in both October 2016 and February 2017 and report published by that Inspector.

Workplace Relations Commission Inspector’s Investigation Reports

The report of Inspector was opened, and it was submitted that there were two complaints, one of which was later withdrawn and that of the Complainant’s. There were findings of contraventions which lead to a compliance notice, fixed penalty notice and a criminal hearing. It was submitted that this investigation was into all aspects, including the underpayment of wages and therefore, the matter has been investigated fully by the Workplace Relation Commission Inspectorate.  From the executive summary , the Inspector notes he examined records and carried out calculations and from reading the report it is “clear it is a far reaching report”.

The claim for underpayment of wages is disbarred from consideration by an Adjudication Officer by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 and the Director General “ought to recall the complaint” to comply with his duty under Section 24 (2) of the Act.

With reference to Section 24 (2) (B) of the 2000 Act, if is clear in fact and law that the inspection had taken place and it was quite clear what was being complained of was an underpayment in the Complainant Form of 17 August 2016. Upon a reasonable and plain reading of p. 15 of 21 of the 17 August 2016 Complaint Form, “the Complainant was not paid what she should have been paid”

In correspondence with the Director General and the Legal Department of the Workplace Relations Commission such assertions had not been denied and this silence could only be acceptance of the Respondent’s argument.

Res Judicata

The Respondent put forward the argument of res judicata following the Adjudication Officer’s Decision of 1 March 2017 as a Decision, whether correct or not, was made.  

The Complainant failed to appeal this decision to the Labour Court, but it did appeal the five other complaints and on that basis the principle of res judicata applies.

In relation to the hearing before another WRC Adjudication Officer on 8 December 2016 the exact same sum of €46,041.41 was claimed which is now being complained off again.

Estoppel and Delay

Counsel was requested to comment on my jurisdiction in relation to the equitable principle  of estoppel and argument of delay. Counsel stated that these may go to the merits of the case but “does not go to your jurisdiction and the Respondent was limiting its submission” to my jurisdiction and that of the Director General. “Therefore, I refer you to my submissions again”

Mansion House Ltd t/a Fado Restaurant v Jose Izquierdo, MWD043

Counsel was further requested to comment on the Labour Court decision referred to by the Complainant in the Mansion House Ltd v Izquierdo. It was submitted that facts of this decision were entirely separate, and the allegation of underpayment was investigated by the Inspector. It was submitted that the Inspector’s did investigate “underpayment” and therefore, the decision does not have any relevance as it deals with a separate issue.

Substantive Issue

Following their submissions on the preliminary objection, the legal representatives for the Respondent left the hearing and no submission or evidence was put forward by the Respondent in response to the Complainant’s complaint pursuant to Section 24 of the 2000 Act.

Preliminary Objection

Referral of Complaints by the Director General to an Adjudication Officer.

Section 41 (2) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides:

“(2) An employee or an employer (in this Act also referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the complainant so consents, a specified person, may refer a dispute as to the entitlements of the employee under an enactment specified in Part 3 of Schedule 5  to the Director General, and, where a dispute is so referred, the Director General shall, subject to section 39 , refer the dispute for adjudication by an adjudication officer.”

The Complainant referred this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.,

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 falls within Part 3 of Schedule 5 of the Act

The Complainant sought Adjudication of her complaint and therefore, Section 39 is not applicable.

On 7 May 2021, the Director General referred this complaint to me.

Section 41 (5) of the 2015 Act provides:-

“(5) (a) An adjudication officer to whom a complaint or dispute is referred under this section shall—

(i) inquire into the complaint or dispute,

(ii) give the parties to the complaint or dispute an opportunity to—

(I) be heard by the adjudication officer, and  

(II) present to the adjudication officer any evidence relevant to the complaint or dispute,

(iii) make a decision in relation to the complaint or dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provision, and

(iv) give the parties to the complaint or dispute a copy of that decision in writing.”

In respect of the Respondent’s submission that the DirectorGeneral “ought to recall the complaint” to comply with his duty under Section 24 (2) of the Act is not a matter within my judication to decide upon. It is not accepted that I am “disbarred” from inquiring the Complainant’s complaint.  I am satisfied that the complaint was properly referred to me for adjudication where the Complainant complied with the procedural requirements of Section 23.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I refer the Respondent to the letter from the Legal Department of the Workplace Relations Commission dated 7 October 2021 wherein the last line in the letter states: the WRC “vehemently denies any allegation that it has failed to properly discharge its functions or that it has failed to apply fair procedures”.

Workplace Relations Commission Inspector’s Investigation Report

Two reports from the WRC Inspection Services were relied upon by the Respondent; the first, an Inspection Service Report, dated 12 September 2017 and A Prescribed Fixed Payment Notice, dated 23 October 2017. On the basis of these reports, the Respondent submitted I did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on a claim pursuant to Section 24 of the Act.

After careful review of the reports, I accept that there was an investigation by a Workplace Relations Commission Inspector pursuant to Section 33 (1) of the Act but not in relation to the underpayment of wages as per Section 24 (2) (b) of the Act . Therefore, I am satisfied that the matter is properly before me.  

Res Judicata

The Adjudication Officer’s Decision in ADJ-0004715 ,dated 1 March 2017, following a hearing on 8 December 2016 did refer to a complaint pursuant to Section 24 of the 2000 Act (CA-00006504-0002) which is noted as having been received on 17 August 2016 by the Workplace Relations Commission.

While it is not my intention to revisit a Decision previously made by another Adjudication Officer, the Complaint Form of 17 August 2016 was opened and referred to by both parties on several occasion. From review of the Complaint Form, it is accepted that there was no statement of the Complainant’s hourly rate sought from the Respondent. .

Section 24 (2) explicitly requires that an employee request a statement of the average hourly rate of pay before the matter is can be heard by an Adjudication Officer:-

“(2) A dispute cannot be referred to or dealt with by a rights commissioner—

(a) unless the employee—

(i) has obtained under section 23  a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period, or

(ii) having requested the statement, has not been provided with it within the time limited by that section for the employer to supply the information,

and a period of 6 months (or such longer period, not exceeding 12 months, as the rights commissioner may allow) has not elapsed since that statement was obtained or time elapsed, as the case may be,

or

(b) where, in respect of the same alleged under-payment, the employer is or has been—

(i) the subject of investigation by an inspector under section 33  or 34 , or

(ii) prosecuted for an offence under section 35 .”

The Complaint submitted the helpful Labour Court’s decision on Section 23 (1) in Mansion House Ltd t/a Fado Restaurant v Jose Izquierdo, MWD043 where the situation of Section 23 is clarified:-

“…for the sake of completeness, the Court should point out that where a claimant has failed to request a statement in accordance with Section 23 (1), the appropriate course of action is to decline jurisdiction without prejudice to the claimants right to re-enter the same complaint having complied with the said section…”

Consequently, I find that the complaint pursuant to Section 24 of the 2000 Act is properly before me where a statement of the average hourly rate of pay was sought on 16 September 2016 and a period of four weeks passed before the Complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission on 21 October 2016.

Estoppel and Delay

The Complainant’s argument on the jurisdiction on this point is accepted.

 Substantive Issue

The  Act provides for an employee’s entitlement to payment not less than the minimum wage:-

8.—(1) For the purpose of determining under this Act whether an employee is being paid not less than the minimum hourly rate of pay to which he or she is entitled in accordance with this Act, but subject to section 9 , “working hours”, in relation to an employee in a pay reference period, means—

(a) the hours (including a part of an hour) of work of the employee as determined in accordance with—

(i) his or her contract of employment,

(ii) any collective agreement that relates to the employee,

(iii) any Registered Employment Agreement that relates to the employee,

(iv) any Employment Regulation Order that relates to the employee,

(v) any statement provided by the employee's employer to the employee in accordance with section 3 (1) of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 ,

(vi) any notification by the employee's employer to the employee under section 17 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 ,

(vii) section 18 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 , or

(viii) any other agreement made between the employee and his or her employer or their representatives that includes a provision in relation to hours of work,

or

(b) the total hours during which the employee carries out or performs the activities of his or her work at the employee's place of employment or is required by his or her employer to be available for work there and is paid as if the employee is carrying out or performing the activities of his or her work,

whichever, in any case, is the greater number of hours of work

(2) “Working hours” under this section shall include-

(a) overtime,

(b) time spent travelling on official business, and

(c) time spent on training or on a training course or course of study authorised by the employer, within the workplace or elsewhere, during normal working hours,

but shall not include—

(i) time spent absent from work on annual leave, sick leave, protective leave, adoptive leave, parental leave, carer’s leave under the Carer’s Leave Act, 2001, while laid-off, on strike or on ‘lock-out’, or time for which the employee is paid in lieu of notice, or,

(ii) time spent absent from work on annual leave, sick leave, protective leave, adoptive leave, parental leave, while laid-off, on strike or on “lock-out”, or time for which the employee is paid in lieu of notice, or

(iii) time spent on travelling between an employee's place of residence and place of work and back.”

The Complainant gave her evidence with exceptional detail and clarity despite the passage of time. She was clear as to dates, times, events with reference to supporting evidence. 

The evidence that she worked from between 06.00 – 06.20 to 21.15 to 21.30 is accepted. Her evidence that she was provided with payslips which merely detailed her pay and statutory deductions with no reference to working hours. Her evidence that in order to receive her payslip she was required to sign what appeared to be a blank “second sheet” which she subsequently discovered was a false record of her hours of work. It is accepted that as a result of the Respondent’s actions that she intentionally kept in the dark as to how much per hour she earned or the even that she was entitled to a minimum wage for demanding 80 hours a week job. Therefore,  I accept her undisputed evidence in its entirety.

It is further noted that the Respondent failed to comply with her statutory request for a statement of her average hourly rate of pay.

The falsification of working hours with the clear intention of deceiving the Complainant and underpaying her significantly less than the national minimum wage is the most heinous breach of her employment rights. The Respondent sought to take advantage of the Complainant , who by her own admission, was not familiar with her employment rights upon arrival in this country.

 Consequently, I find her complaint is well founded.

I find the Complainant’s claim pursuant to the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 for underpayment to be well founded.

Section 26 (2) of the 2000 Act (as amended by the Workplace  Relations Act 2015) provides for the modes of redress :-

“26. (1) A decision of an adjudication officer in relation to a dispute in respect of the entitlements of an employee under this Act referred to the adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 may contain—

(a) a direction to the employer to pay to the employee—

(i) an award of arrears, being the difference between any amount paid or allowed by the employer to the employee for pay and the minimum amount the employee was entitled to be paid or allowed in accordance with this Act in respect of the period to which the dispute relates, and

(ii) reasonable expenses of the employee in connection with the dispute,

(b) a requirement that the employer rectify, within a specified time (not being later than 42 days after the date the decision is communicated to the employer) or in a specified manner, any matter, including the payment of any amount, in respect of which the employer is in contravention of this Act,

both such direction and such requirement, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate.”

In the circumstances where the Complainant is no longer an employee of the Respondent, Section 26 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) of the 2000 Act are the most appropriate redress.

Pay Reference Period for Calculation of Redress

The National Minimum Wage Act 2000 falls under the Schedule 5 of Workplace Relation Act 2015. Section 41 (7) (d) of the 2015 Act states:-

“(d) in the case of a dispute relating to the entitlement of an employee under the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 , it has been referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on-

(i) the date on which the employee obtains a statement of his or her average hourly rate of pay in respect of the relevant pay reference period in accordance with section 23 of that Act,

(ii) in circumstances where that statement is not provided having been requested by the employee to be provided to him or her, the day after the date of expiration of the time within which that statement was required to be provided by the employer in accordance with that section,”

Section 23 (1) of the 2000 Act defines the pay reference period as being the 12 months immediately preceding the request for the statement:-

23.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee may request from his or her employer a written statement of the employee's average hourly rate of pay for any pay reference period (other than the employee's current pay reference period) falling within the 12 month period immediately preceding the request.

Therefore, I find the pay reference period for the purposes of redress being the 12 month period from 16 September 2015 – 16 September 2016, being the date the Complainant requested the Section 23 statement from the Respondent.

In terms of the working week, I am guided by the Complainant’s reference to the Labour Court’s Decision involving the same parties, Stable field Limited v Ana Lacramioara Manciu, DWT 1924 wherein it was decided; “The Court is satisfied , on the basis of evidence presented, that a working week of at least 80 hours was the regular reality for the Complainant”

I am awarding the Complainant the sum of €15,058.25 in arrears being the difference between any amount paid by the Respondent to the Complainant and the minimum wage for the 12 month period from 16 September 2015 to 16 September 2016.

I am further awarding the Complainant €2,000 towards expenses incurred in connection with this dispute.

Payment of Wages – Minimum Wage – Falsification of Records – Underpayment – Jurisdiction – Section 24 (2) National Minimum Wage Act 2000- Pay Reference Period