Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Colin  Smyth

Logicon Limited

Representatives

Mr. Neil Manley, Manley Solicitors

Self-Represented

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-00047175-001

15/11/2021

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 22nd April 2022. The Complainant’s tenure was brief, with the employment terminating on 28th May 2021.

On 15th November 2021, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein he alleged that the Respondent failed to pay him one week of wages, or the sum of €1,154.00. Initially, the Respondent indicated that they did not wish to contest the complaint, however at the hearing they submitted that the Complainant was paid all wages for his employment.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 16th September 2022. This hearing was conducted 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 Complainant gave evidence in support of his allegation. A director gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent. Both parties were permitted to be cross-examined by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Complainant submitted that he was due one week’s wages from his former employment. In evidence he stated that at the outset of his employment he was paid on a “week in hand” basis, and did not receive payment until the end of his second week of employment.

The Complainant subsequently resigned his employment, with his final day of work being 28th May 2021. While the Complainant was paid until that date, he was owed one further week of pay in respect of the “week in hand”.

By submission, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent’s failure in this regard constituted a unlawful deduction for the purposes of the present Act.

In answering the complaint, the Respondent submitted that no illegal deduction occurred. The Managing Director, on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was paid for every week of work that he completed. He submitted that the Complainant would not be entitled to a notice payment in a situation whereby he resigned his employment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Respondent submitted that if any wages were due and owing to the Complainant, he would have no difficulty in discharging the same.

Section 1 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, defines “wages” as,

“…any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including…any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise”.

In the matter of Marek Balans v Tesco Ireland Ltd [2019 No. 83 MCA], McGrath J stated that when considering complaints under the present Act,

“Central to the Court’s analysis must be the concepts of wages properly payable and the circumstances in which if there is a deficiency in respect of those such payments”.

The present matter relates to a net point advanced by the Complainant. He submitted that he completed five weeks of work and was paid for four. This allegation is a matter that is easily disproven by the Respondent, in such circumstances they would be expected to produce five payslips demonstrating the relevant payments. Given the Respondent’s failure to provide the same, and in consideration of the Complainant’s direct evidence in relation to the matter, I find in his favour and consequently the complaint is well-founded.

I find that the complaint is well-founded and consequently the Complainant’s application succeeds. Regarding redress, Section 6(2) of the Act (as amended) empowers me to award such redress as deemed reasonable in the circumstances, so long as the same does not exceed the total amount of wages owed.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence presented, I award the Complainant the sum of €1,154.00 in compensation. This award should be subject to all usual deductions as income.

Deduction of Wages