Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vlad  Donea

Redwood Mechanical Services Limited

Representatives

  Self-represented

 No Appearance

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-00052975-001

26/09/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00052975-002

26/09/2022

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The Complainant appeared in person. There was no appearance by the Respondent. Having reviewed the file, the notification was sent to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Workplace Relations Commission did contact the Respondent via phone call and was sent the web link to the hearing. Therefore, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the complaint.

The Complainant worked from 21 June 2022 to 24 July 2022 with the Respondent as a plumber. It was accepted by the Complainant that he was neither an apprentice plumber nor a qualified plumber but had experience in the area. It was agreed that he would be paid €25 per hour. There was no contract of employment.

He had an accident at work which resulted in an injury which led him to be off sick for a period of two weeks. The Complainant stated he was told that he was not required by the Respondent when he sought to return to work.

The Respondent committed to paying him for one week of his sick leave but failed to do so.

It is the Complainant’s case that he worked for 185 hours in total but was only paid for 12.5 hours. It is his claim that he was due and owing the sum of €1,612.50 plus €370 annual leave payment plus additional weeks’ pay of €1,000 (40 hours x €25 per hour) as agreed for his sick leave due to the workplace injury.  

No appearance by the Respondent.

CA-00052975-001

I accept the undisputed evidence of the Complainant in full and therefore find his complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 well founded.

Section 6 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 provides: -

 “Where a rights commissioner decides, as respects a complaint under this section in relation to adeduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment, that the complaint is well-founded in regard to the whole or a part of the deduction or payment, the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding—

(a) the net amount of the wages (after the making of any lawful deduction therefrom) that—

(i) in case the complaint related to a deduction, would have been paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of the deduction if the deduction had not been made, or

(ii) in case the complaint related to a payment, were paid to the employee in respect of the week immediately preceding the date of payment

or

(b) if the amount of the deduction or payment is greater than the amount referred to in paragraph (a), twice the former amount.”

I find the complaint is well founded and award the Complainant the net amount of his wages due and owing of the gross sum of €2,984.50.

CA-00052975-002

Having carefully reviewed the definition of an apprentice as set out in Section 27 of the Industrial Training Act, 1967, I do not find that the Complainant was an apprentice. Furthermore, based on the Complainant’s own submission he was not a qualified plumber either and therefore falls outside the scope of the Mechanical Engineering Construction Sector SEO.

CA-00052975-001

I find the complaint is well founded.

I award the Complainant the net amount of his wages due and owing of the gross sum of €2,984.50.

CA-00052975-002

I find the complaint is not well founded.

SEO – Payment of Wages