ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035145
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Blazej Sarnecki | Bidvest Noonan |
Representatives |
| IBEC |
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-00046290-001 | 17/09/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 19/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
The hearing was heard remotely, 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.
Parties in attendance were advised that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 that this hearing before the Workplace Relations Commission would be held in public and that this decision would not be anonymised and there was no objection to same.
Background:
The complainant submits that he was owed monies from the respondent. The complainant did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant did not attend the hearing.
The complainant submitted on his complainant form that he was owed €1,170.09 arising from hours that he was not paid for.
On 20th July 2022 the complainant emailed the WRC using a different email than that which he had submitted on his complaint form; and advised that “months ago I spoke over the phone with your employee and withdraw (sic) my complaint after I received part of my money back from my previous employer”. The complainant submitted that there was also an attachment of a screenshot with the email.
The WRC responded to the complainant advising they were unable to open the attachment and said “please confirm if your case has been withdrawn”. The complainant did not respond to that email. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that they received late notice of the hearing as it had been sent to a person who is no longer with the respondent.
The respondent submitted that all outstanding monies had been paid to the complainant. |
Findings and Conclusions:
A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant on 17 September 2021 alleging that the respondent contravened the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation. A hearing for that purpose was held on 19th September 2022. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.
The respondent attended the hearing and refuted the claims.
The complainant emailed on 20th July 2022 advising “…I…withdraw (sic) my complaint after I received part of my money back from my previous employer”. I note that the complainant used a different email address than the email address on record for the complainant. The complainant was asked to clarify through his new email address that his complaint was withdrawn and did not respond to that email.
The complainant was emailed details of the hearing using his original email address on record. I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held and that the failure to attend is unexplained. In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint.
|
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.
In all the aforementioned circumstances, I must conclude that the complaint is not well founded and dismiss the complaint. |
Dated: 30/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Louise Boyle
Key Words:
Payment of wages, complainant did not attend |