Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mauricio  Guzman Alonso

Getfood Limited Krust Bakery

Representatives

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-00045504-001

03/08/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00046720-001

17/10/2021

The Complainant was employed as an Area Sales Manager from 11th January 2021 until he resigned on 29th June 2021.

Mr. Guzman complains he was not paid his notice. He agreed to be paid in lieu of his notice and holidays when he was leaving. He was being bullied. The company requested him to agree to inaccurate figures in order to pay notice in lieu, when he refused they insisted he work his notice. Mr. Guzman was on sick-leave for one month due to his work and was advised to resign. He was not paid any notice although he could not work and is owed €3,333.00. He worked for 27 weeks and 1 day. He took 2 days holiday, and received 6 days holiday pay. He is owed 2.4 days annual leave.

Mr. Guzman complains he was not paid commission due. The rate of commission agreed was set out in his contract of employment. The company would not pay him what was owed, nor would they give him a statement of what was paid to calculate what was owed. He is owed €1,126.10 commission. He has evidence of the sales which he produced at the hearing. He does not accept the figures produced by Krust bakery as they do not reflect all of his sales, and provided examples. He asked the Respondent to produce all of his sales invoices, but nothing has been produced. A long time has passed since he sold the goods, but he has still not received monies due.

Mr. Paul Whelan appeared on behalf of the Respondent on the first day of hearing. The hearing was adjourned. On the second day of hearing Mr. Whelan informed the Workplace Relations Commission he was not well enough to attend. He emailed the Workplace Relations Commission with a sales report relating to the Complainant’s sales.

Mr. Whelan disputes the figures given by Mr. Guzman and says only €32,421 sales was generated. He said the delay in producing figures is because all accounts are not billed centrally. He said the commission gets paid quarterly when the company gets paid.

Mr. Whelan said the Complainant did not attend work so was not paid any notice. He offered the Complainant work from home, but the Complainant wouldn’t work the week. He said commission is not included on payslips and this is an internal issue due to the end of year accounts.

I heard and considered the parties written and oral submissions.

Mr. Guzman seeks payment of one week’s notice. He says he was advised to leave work. He was ill for one month prior to his resignation. Mr. Guzman resigned from his employment and did not work his final week of notice with the company, in the circumstances, I find he is not due notice pay. The complaint is not well founded.

Mr. Guzman has complained he was not paid 2.4 days of annual leave based on his record of service. I find the complaint is well founded as it is a deduction pursuant to S5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and direct payment of €399.96 arrears of holiday pay by the company to Mr. Guzman.

Mr. Guzman seeks payment of arrears of commission of €1,126.10. He did not receive payslips with a calculation of commission payable which was part of his wages. This is a breach of S4 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Respondent provided a sales report of commissions earned to the Workplace Relations Commission. Mr. Guzman produced evidence of omission of sales from the Respondent’s sales report at the hearing which is a deduction pursuant to S5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. Following the hearing, Krust Bakery were directed to produce all sales invoices relating to Mr. Guzman’s sales within 14 days. These documents were not submitted by Krust Bakery as requested.

I find Mr. Guzman to be a credible witness. I find the Complainant’s complaint of non-payment of commission to be well founded and direct payment of €1,126.10 arrears of commission to Mr. Guzman together with compensation of €1,571 in respect of the breach of the Act.

I find the complaint regarding payment of notice pay is not well founded.

I find the complaint of failure to pay 2.4 days of annual leave to be well founded and direct payment of €399.96 annual leave by the Respondent to the Complainant.

I find the Complainant’s complaint of non-payment of commission owed to be well founded. I direct payment of €1,126.10 arrears of commission and compensation of €1,571.00 by the Respondent to the Complainant.