Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Igor Knizek

Seylene Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

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-00057920-001

26/07/2023

The complainant made a number of complaints under the Payment of Wages Act.

The complainant says he worked for the respondent at the Hotel St George from 11 May 2016 – 20 July 2023 as a receptionist. He makes the following submissions.

Annual Leave: 2019 – he only took 13 days and says he is due payment for 10 days at €13.50 per hour and 8 hours per day; amounting to €1,080.

2020 – he only took ten days and is due payment for 13 days at €13.50 per hour and 8 hours per day; amounting to €1,404.

2023 – he resigned 20 July 2023 and had taken 10 days. He says he is owed 3 days, amounting to €310.50

Night Shift Underpayment: the complainant submits that in 2021 he transferred to day shifts for health reasons, and his hourly rate reduced from €13.50 to €12.50. He says that in breach of his contract he was sometimes put on night shifts. He was put on 70 night shifts in 2021, 55 in 2022 and 68 in 2023. This is a total of 202 for which he is owed €678.

Payment into wrong bank account: the complainant submits that in June 2022 the respondent paid his salary of €475) into a bank account he had told them was closed. When he told them of the error the respondent did pay the money into the new bank account but they made him repay the money that had been paid into the old bank account by them in error.

Ms Nina Eustace as Company Director for the respondent gave evidence that the complainant was employed as a Night Porter from 25 May 2016 to 17 June 2021 at €13.50 per hour when he resigned for personal reasons. He was re-employed, on a new contract from 15 April 2022 until 20 June 2023 at €12.50 per hour as a Receptionist. She submits the complainant can have no claim on his employment which ended on 17 June 2021, as any claim would be outside the time limits.

Annual Leave: He made no claim in relation to 2022. The respondent says the complainant worked 2408 hours from 15 April 2022 to 20 June 2023, when he left, and was paid 216 hours in annual leave. This was on the basis of an entitlement under the Organisation of Working Time Act of 8% of hours worked. Therefore, he has no entitlement to any further payment.

Night Shift Underpayment: the respondent submits that when he returned to their employment on 15 April 2022 he accepted a contract as a Receptionist at €12.50 per hour. All receptionists were expected to provide cover on night shifts. The complainant had no entitlement to enhanced payment for working night shifts. The respondent said some employees had different, negotiated, terms and were paid extra for working night shifts. But these were individual arrangements.

Payment into wrong bank account: the respondent accepts the complainant told them he wanted his salary paid into a new account. However, this was not done in time for the next pay run and his salary was paid into the old account, but was retrieved. By error the complainant’s next salary was again paid into the old account. Due to an issue between the complainant and the bank this payment could not be retrieved. As the complainant was then paid his salary into the new account, it was agreed the complainant would repay the salary that could not be retrieved in instalments, at the complainant’s suggestion.

The respondent gave contradictory evidence to that given first by the complainant; such as the two periods of employment, which fundamentally undermined the evidence he gave under oath, when he committed to telling the truth. Furthermore, the complainant, when asked, did not disagree with the respondent’s evidence. I therefore find as follows:

 Annual Leave: I accept the respondent’s evidence. Given the break in service I find the complainant has no claim for 2019 or 2020. The complainant was paid correctly for his annual leave entitlement in 2023.

Night Shift Underpayment: I accept the respondent’s evidence. I find that, in accordance with his contract of employment, the complainant had no entitlement to an enhanced payment for working the night shift

Payment into wrong bank account: I accept the respondent’s evidence. I find that whilst the respondent made a mistake in paying the complainant’s salary into an old bank account a second time, this money could not be retrieved because of an issue between the complainant and the bank. Therefore, the complainant fails.

For the reasons given above I find the complaints are not well founded.

Not well founded