ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00041437
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Aoife Roche | Schnitzel Haus Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | None in attendance |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 | CA-00052483-001 | 30/08/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/03/2023 & 12/09/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Procedure:
Ms Aoife Roche (the “complainant”) referred a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 30 August 2022.
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 complaints.
Remote hearings were arranged for 23 March 2023 and 12 September 2023 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 attended the hearing on 23 March 2023. There was no attendance at that hearing by or on behalf of Schnitzel Haus Limited (the “respondent”). I adjourned the hearing as I was not satisfied the respondent had been properly notified of the complaint and hearing arrangements.
A further hearing was arranged for 12 September 2023. The complainant was in attendance but again there was no attendance by or on behalf of the respondent. I noted a communication received from an accountant confirming that he was acting in the case on behalf of the respondent. I was satisfied that the representative had been duly notified of the hearing arrangements for the case.
I established as normal the company’s registration status with the Companies Registration Office and proceeded with the hearing after allowing some time for any delay on the part of the respondent or its representative. The complainant gave sworn evidence on 12 September 2023.
Background:
This complaint relates to the complainant’s employment as a waitress at the respondent’s restaurant during the summer of 2022. The complaint concerns the non-payment of wages and holiday pay in July 2022. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant is a third level student who worked as a waitress at the respondent’s restaurant from May to July 2022. On 8 July 2022, the complainant gave one week’s notice to a director of the respondent company that she would cease working at the restaurant on 15 July 2022. The complainant agreed to waitress on 22 July 2022 as there was a wedding reception and the respondent was understaffed. The complainant was not paid her wages for the weeks ending 15 July and 22 July 2022 on the 22 July 2022. The complainant attended at the restaurant on days agreed with the director to collect her wages but to no avail because either the director was not there, or the restaurant was closed. The complainant was informed by text message from the director on 4 August 2022 that the company was insolvent. The complainant did not have any further direct contact from this director in relation to her wages. The complainant made enquires of the respondent’s accountant regarding her unpaid wages and of the Department of Social Protection regarding the Insolvency Scheme but was unable to progress the matter of her unpaid wages through either of them. The complainant was ordinarily paid weekly by the respondent and her hourly rate of pay was the national minimum wage at the time, €10.50 per hour. The complainant outlined the days and hours she worked in the weeks ending 15 and 22 July 2022. The complainant was not provided with a written statement of her terms of employment. The complainant submitted documentary evidence of her requests to collect her wages and the response of the respondent on 29 July 2022. The complainant also submitted Revenue payroll submission records. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
There was no attendance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing. Correspondence from an accountant to the Commission in March and April 2023 advised that the respondent ceased trading in August 2022 and confirmed that the accountant was acting as representative for the respondent. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I am satisfied that the respondent’s representative was notified by the Commission of the September hearing arrangements. I established that the respondent remains on the register with the Companies Registration Office. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for me to adjudicate on the complaint before me. This complaint concerns non-payment of wages to the complainant on 22 July 2022 in respect of a 2-week period the complainant worked for the respondent and holiday pay. I reviewed the details submitted to Revenue for the relevant periods which confirm the complainant’s employment with the respondent and the evidence given by the complainant regarding the wages payable. The complainant’s evidence that she did not receive the wages payable to her was uncontested. I find that the complainant worked shifts on four days in the week ending 15 July 2022 and 1 shift in the week ending 22 July 2022 and that the wages properly payable to the complainant on 22 July 2022 in respect of those shifts was €420.00. The complainant’s uncontested evidence was that she did not take annual leave during her employment from 30 May 2022 to 22 July 2022, and she was not paid for annual leave accrued but untaken on cessation of her employment. Based on the evidence before me of 230.5 hours worked by the complainant from May 2022 to July 2022 and the uncontested oral evidence of the complainant regarding annual leave and pay for same, I find that the sum of €193.62 for holiday pay was payable to the complainant on cessation of her employment on 22 July 2022. I find, on the evidence before me, that the complainant was not paid the wages properly payable to her on 22 July 2022 as outlined herein, and that the non-payment of same amounts to an unlawful deduction within the meaning of section 5 of the 1991 Act. I therefore find in accordance with section 6 of the 1991 Act that the complaint of a contravention of section 5 is well-founded and I direct the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €613.62. |
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.
I find that this complaint of a contravention of section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is well-founded and direct the respondent to pay to the complainant compensation of €613.62. |
Dated: 2nd October 2023.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kara Turner
Key Words:
Wages – Holiday Pay – Payment of Wages Act 1991 |