ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039593
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Glenn Mccabe | Applus Inspection Services Ireland Ltd |
Representatives | Cara O' Neill SITPU |
|
Complaint(s):
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-00051274-001 | 22/06/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Procedure:
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 complaint.
This matter was heard 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.
In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in public, and that testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.
No objections to the public nature of the Hearing or Findings were raised.
Background:
The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 10 February 2020, as a vehicle inspector. His employment ended on 31 December 2021. He worked 39 hours per week. The complainant submitted a complaint form to the WRC, received on 22 June 2022, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant put forward that he was owed €563.45.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In his complaint form, the complainant submitted that he had banked 60 by the time he was leaving the employment and he expected to be compensated for these hours at the normal overtime rate of 1.5, in line with a Labour Court Recommendation issued to the respondent previously. When he attempted to establish a reason for the withholding of the rate and the paying of the 60 hours at flat rate, he did not receive a satisfactory explanation. The complainant’s representative put forward his case at the hearing. Ms O’Neill, SIPTU, stated that the complainant’s banked hours should have been paid at the 1.5 overtime rate but instead they were paid at the flat rate, so instead of receiving a payment of €492 at the time, the complainant only received a net payment of €270. Following a drawn out process the respondent did make up the difference on the banked hours, however, because of the delay and the difference in taxes charged, the complainant was down €220. Ms O’Neill stated that the complainant was at a significant loss because of the way the matter had been handled. A request to make up the difference by an ex-gratia payment was turned down by the respondent. Ms O’Neill pointed out that ignored this matter for a long time and had only paid the outstanding money two days before the hearing. Ms O’Neill stated that there had been no communications from the respondent in the run up to the hearing nor had there been any explanation for the delay in making the payment to the complainant. Ms O’Neill closed by stating that the complainant was owed x amount but was now only getting X-minus and therefore the respondent should show some good will and mitigate his loss.
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Mr Hugh O’Brien, for the respondent stated that the sum requested on the complainant form submitted to the WRC, €564, had now been paid. The complainant had been taxed according to Revenue guidelines and that if any tax is due to the complainant, he can make a claim to Revenue.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
The amount due to the complainant has been paid to him, therefore the complaint is moot. However, it is unfortunate that the respondent did not sort this matter out far sooner.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 11th April 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath
Key Words:
|