ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00038949
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Maria Ferreira | Margaret Cleary Recruitcare |
Representatives | Alice Kavanagh North Dublin Citizens Information Service CLG |
|
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 24 of the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000 | CA-00050615-001 | 13/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00050615-002 | 13/05/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00050615-003 | 13/05/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background:
The Complainant worked for a company which the Respondent was a Director of, for a period of 6 weeks in November /December 2021.
The Complainant submitted complaints alleging non-payment of wages, failure to pay the minimum wage and failure to pay outstanding holidays on the 13th of May 2022. She also submitted a separate identical set of complaints against the company itself. This complaint is listed as ADJ-00039065 and both matters were heard together.
A hearing was held on the 14th of February 2023. The complainant indicated that she wished to proceed against the company listed in ADJ-00039065 rather than this Respondent.
The Complainant attended and gave evidence under oath. The Complainant was represented by Alice Kavanagh of Citizen’s Information.
Lydia Byrne, an interpreter appointed by the WRC, assisted in translating the Complainant’s evidence under oath.
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied having reviewed the correspondence on file and the previous engagement between the parties, that she was on notice.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not withdraw this case but they were clear that they saw the Respondent in ADJ-00039065 as their employer. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have made a decision against the Respondent in ADJ-00039065 on the basis that that entity was the Complainant’s employer. As such concerning these identical complaints covering the same issues but directed against this Respondent instead cannot succeed. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00050615-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00050615-002 I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00050615-003 I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 3rd April 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|