Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Slaven  Miskovic

Cybil Limited

Representatives

  Self-represented

 No appearance

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-00052523-001

31/08/2022

This complaint involves a claim for pay under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The Complainant represented himself. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Complainant’s case is that he was working for the Respondent company for approximately two months and was being paid weekly in arrears; and that once he handed in his notice, he received no further pay from the Respondent company, and two weeks’ pay are due and owing to him.

The Complainant referred to various pay slips in his evidence and the Adjudication Officer invited him to submit those pay slips, subsequent to the hearing, within a prescribed time-frame, which he did.

The Complainant represented himself and gave evidence under oath. He outlined that he had worked for the Respondent company for approximately two months. He explained that it was a full-time position at €16 per hour – the payslip submitted from May 2022 shows a 39-hour work week at a rate of €16 producing basic weekly pay of €624, confirming his correct rate of pay. He was paid a week in arrears.

He explained that despite the job being a full-time position, his hours were cut, providing him with insufficient income, as it was less than he was expecting to earn in the job.

He outlined that he gave in his notice due to the cut in hours and earnings – one week’s notice was required – on June 20th, 2022, and worked his week’s notice, but that subsequent to handing in his notice he received no further pay, i.e. there are two weeks’ pay outstanding to him, as the pattern of payment was one week in arrears.

What is outstanding to the Complainant is two weeks’ wages [Payslip date: 20/06/2022 pertaining to the previous week’s work; Payslip date: 27/06/2022 pertaining to the previous week’s work.]

The Complainant explained that, for the month of July, he did not work for the Respondent and was not paid; and then he returned, at the request of the owner to work on 01/08/2022. He worked for 2.5 hours that day, which was a public holiday and was not paid for that either. He was issued with the two payslips (dated 20/06/2022 and 27/06/2022) at that point, which correctly recorded the hours he had worked but not his rate of pay – those payslips incorrectly recorded his rate of pay as being €15 per hour instead of €16 per hour. He did not receive any payment in respect of those two payslips issued.

The amount due and owing to the Complainant is as follows:

·       [Hours as per the pay slip dated 20/06/2022]: 23.23 hours x €16 = €371.68

·       [Hours as per the pay slip dated 27/06/2022]: 16.04 hours x €16 = €256.64

Total Amount Due and Owing: €628.32

No reference to the 2.5 hours worked on the public holiday was made in the complaint form filed, and I therefore do not have jurisdiction in respect of that aspect of the complaint.

No appearance was entered by or on behalf of the Respondent.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was properly on notice of the hearing.

I found the Complainant to be a cogent and credible witness.

I accept his uncontroverted evidence in relation to the complaint herein as being correct and accurate.

I have had regard to his evidence as well as the documentation submitted in making my findings.

I find that €628.32 is due and owing to the Complainant, comprising two figures (€371.68 and €256.64, as set out above).

I find for the Complainant.

I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the amount of €628.32 within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Pay;