Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel  Barron

Orbit Security Limited Orbit Security

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-00039406-001

27/08/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00039406-002

27/08/2020

The complainant Noel Barron commenced employment with Orbit Security Limited on September 25th, 2014, as a Security Guard and his usual place of work was at the Letterkenny IT (LYIT).

 This is one of a number of complaints made by the complainant against this respondent (and another, which has been the subject of separate hearings).

The complainant gave his evidence to the hearing on affirmation.

He says the respondent failed to pay him annual leave, bank holiday payments and that he made illegal deductions from his wages which he refused to refund.The complainant requestedpaymentbut he did not receive it.

He received an e-mail from Martin Hilferty, CEO of Orbit Security on March 20th, 2019, confirming that as per the terms of the LYIT tender, all breaks would be paid for in future, in line with new tender terms and e-mails of April 16th, 2019, April 23rd, 2019 from Orbit Security.

Previously, on May 31st, 2019, the complainant had to instructed his solicitor to write to the respondent about the underpayments and on July 4th, 2019, he was asked to attend a meeting with the CEO to try and resolve the ongoing issues.

At that meeting, the complainant says that Mr. Hilferty told him "you have got what you have got, and it was time to go our separate ways as he was sick looking at him and he did not want to hear his voice again"

Mr. Hilferty was aggressive to the complainant and verbally abused him. The complainant's solicitor received an e-mail from the respondent’s Accounts Manager on July 18th, acknowledging the meeting on July 4th, requesting a letter to confirm closure on the matter.

The complainant's solicitor replied on the same day outlining what occurred at the meeting and requesting payment.

The complainant continued to work at the LYIT in Letterkenny following the threats made by Mr. Hilferty to dismiss him following the meeting on July 4th, 2019.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

As noted, the respondent did not attend the hearing.  There was some contact with the WRC by Mr. Hilferty (the then CEO of the respondent) immediately prior to the hearing and he confirmed that he had received notice of the meeting, but he indicated that he did not have legal representation and would therefore seek an adjournment.

In the event he did not seek an adjournment. At such short notice it is normally necessary to appear in person to make an application for an adjournment.

As the hearing was by means of Webex call it would have been relatively easy for him to ‘log in’ and do so as he had been sent the log in details.

I have no doubt that, as the main representative of the respondent in this case and based on the thread of correspondence exhibited in evidence, Mr. Hilferty is fully aware of the complainant’s various complaints against this, and a related respondent.

In the event I decided to proceed with the hearing.

The main problem faced by the complainant in this case can be discerned from the timeline of events set out above.

The details of the issues in dispute were spelled out on a letter to the respondent from the solicitor then acting for the complainant which was sent in May 2019. It refers to annual leave, Public holidays and what is described as an ‘illegal deduction’ of a half hour’s pay between November 2015 and March 2019 when apparently that latter practice was terminated.

These complaints were referred to the WRC on August 27th, 2020. This means the cognisable period in respect of which any claims can be considered runs from six months before that; February 28th, 2020, well after the time that the issues in the complaint arose.

The complainant confirmed at the hearing that there were no relevant breaches within this time frame, nor could he offer any explanation that would excuse the fact that he had not submitted the complaints earlier, or other grounds which might permit a further extension of the period of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, I must conclude that the complaints have not been made within the time limits set out in the Acts under which they have been made and they are therefore not well-founded

For the reasons set out above Complaints CA-00039406-001 and 002 are not well founded

Key Words: Time limits.