ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00047890
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Alona Yubele | Onsite Facilities Management Ltd. |
Representatives | Mannix & Co. LLP | The HR Suite |
Complaints:
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-00058589-001 | 31/08/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 | CA-00058589-002 | 31/08/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
Background
The Complainant referred her complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission which were received on 31 August 2023. The Complainant with the assistance of an Interpreter swore an Affirmation. Ms Catherine Leen of the Respondent swore an Affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Preliminary Objection In response to the Respondent’s objection, it was submitted this is an ongoing complaint as her pay is not being paid at the correct hourly rate. CA-00058589-001 – Payment of Wages It was the Complainant’s evidence that she has not being paid in line with a pay agreement in the sum of €3,272.48 since 1 December 2017 to the date the Complaint was submitted to the WRC on 31 August 2023. It is her case that her hourly rate of pay ought to be €15.30 rather than €15.06. It was her case that by email of 8 June 2022 to Ms Leen, she was advised that she had already received a 9 % pay increase from 2017 over a 3-year period. CA-00058589-002- Terms of Employment It was the Complainant’s evidence that she was notified in writing of the change of her wages and therefore it was not clear what her pay increase was. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Preliminary Objection The Respondent objected to the complaints being outside the time limit provided for in the legislation. CA-00058589-001 – Payment of Wages Ms Leen gave evidence that following negotiations which involved the Complainant and her union representative an agreement was made that there would be a 7.5% pay increase over 3 years with 1.5 % back paid in 2017 and 3% in both 2018 and 2019. A copy of the agreement was produced in evidence. The Complainant has been paid in accordance with the 2018 agreement. CA-00058589-002- Terms of Employment It was Ms Leen’s evidence that the pay increase was applied to the Complainant’s wages, and this was evident on her payslips. She accepted it was not provided to her in an update to her contract of employment. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Preliminary Objection Section 41 (6) sets out the time limit for complaints under both the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994:- (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. There was no extension of time sought as it was submitted it was one continuous breach. The origin of the complaint arises from a pay agreement in December 2018. The Complainant relied on an email from the Respondent dated 8 June 2022. The Complaint Form was received by the WRC on 31 August 2023. The Complainant always received payslips. While it may be one continuous breach, the legislation is clear on the time limits. Therefore, I am limited in my jurisdiction to the six-month period prior to 31 August 2023 being the date the Complaint was received. CA-00058589-001 – Payment of Wages The Complainant was asked directly if she received the agreement of December 2018 to which she answered no. This is incorrect and in fact she was present with her union representative at the time the agreement was made. Therefore, at all times she was on notice of the agreement made in 2018. CA-00058589-002- Terms of Employment This complaint relates to the period outside the six-month time limit provided for in the legislation. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to decide on it. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
CA-00058589-001 – Payment of Wages The complaint is not well founded. CA-00058589-002- Terms of Employment The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th December 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
Payment of Wages- Time |