ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00028815
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Ronan Cahill | The Carphone Warehouse Limited |
Representatives |
| Orla O Leary Mason Hayes & Curran |
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-00038451-001 | 30/06/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/03/2021 and 28/10/2021
The first hearing date was adjourned due to the non-attendance of the Respondent.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
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.
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The parties were very capably represented on both sides and were all courteous to me and the process.
I allowed the right to test the oral evidence presented by cross examination.
Much of this evidence agreed between the parties once an explanation of how the calculations had been made by the Respondent witness.
Background:
This complaint is in relation to outstanding wages for the period March to June 2020. During this time the retail unit where the Complainant worked was closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant's case is that during this time he was placed on the Temporary Wage Subsidy scheme. The Complainant was not happy how his wages were calculated, and he didn’t receive a satisfactory answer from the Respondent. The Complainant felt that the Respondent was anything but transparent regarding how the payments were calculated. He contacted Revenue himself. Revenue provided to him an average weekly net pay. With this information he contacted the Respondent again and pointed out the errors they had made in his wage calculations. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
A witness for the Respondent gave evidence that it reviewed the Claimant's payslips for the four relevant months. For March 2020, the Temporary Wage Subsidies Scheme was not in use. The Complainant was paid as normal. For April 2020, the Respondent applied the Temporary Wage Subsidies Scheme. This was processed on the Complainant's payslip and the Complainant was correctly paid. In May 2020 the Complainant received two payments. The first payment was not the correct payment and a shortfall of €447.05 was incurred. This was later paid, and the Complainant received the full amount due to him. The Respondent confirmed that upon review of the Complainant's payslips, it discovered the payment in June 2020 was incorrect. The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was owed €295.04 from the month of June 2020. |
Findings and Conclusions:
At the hearing, the Complainant accepted the explanations from the Respondent. The witness for the Respondent was able to explain the calculations that based the Complainant's payslips very well. It is unfortunate that this was not able to take place at the time in 2020, however I note that it was a difficult time for all involved due to the Pandemic. |
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.
This complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant the sum of €294.04 being the underpayment of wages due to him. |
Dated: 5th January 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Marguerite Buckley
Key Words:
Wages due to calculation of TWSS |