Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Vinicius Alexandre  Pires Pereira

SSL Shipping Solutions Ltd.

Representatives

Self-represented

 Self-represented

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-00048144-001

13/01/2022

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00048145-001

13/01/2022

The Complainant worked for three weeks for the Respondent, from September 13th, 2021, until October 1st, 2021.

This complaint relates to a claim for outstanding weekly wages for the three weeks he worked; and a second complaint relates to outstanding payment for untaken annual leave (which represents 8% of the hours he worked).

The complaint was filed on January 13th, 2022.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent, on a salary of €23,000 per annum. He worked for three weeks from September 13th, 2021, until October 1st, 2021. He said that he was initially not paid for those three (3) weeks’ work, and that the figure owed was €1,326.92. He said that on numerous occasions he contacted Ms. Kennedy (of the Respondent company) requesting payment and he was not paid.

Then, on January 31st, 2022, he submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

He said that on April 7th, 2022, he received payment in the amount of €690 and he received no payment, no payslip and no explanation. He stated that the amount of €636.92 was outstanding.

The Complainant outlined that he was seeking monies, that he was seeking any penalty against the company, that he felt it was unfair for a company to treat a worker in this way. He said that he was pursuing this case and a penalty rather than just the monies owed.

It is the Complainant’s case that he also received no holiday pay either, and that the figure outstanding in relation to same is €106.15.

Ms. Kennedy gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent.

She said that the Complainant started working for the company in September 2021. She said that he joined the company on September 13th, 2021, and that he was in training, a process which would take about eight (8) weeks.

She stated that when he interviewed for the job, the Complainant for a job was asked whether he had any annual leave booked, and that he had stated that he did not. She gave evidence that, on October 1st, 2021, the Complainant came into her office and told her that he was going to Brazil for a month in December. She said that she told him: ‘That wouldn’t work for us’ as December is a very busy month in the Respondent business. She said that she enquired whether he could cancel his proposed trip. She said that she ‘let him go at lunchtime’ and that he ‘left the office that day.’

She outlined that ‘the following week, we had communication via email.’ She said it was to ‘sort out his cheque.’ She said that ‘normally, we ask staff to work a week in hand.’

She said that, on October 12th, 2021, the Complainant came unannounced to her office. The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, enquired as to the nature of the conversation. Ms. Kennedy said that it related to the nature of the Complainant’s work visa.

Ms. Kennedy outlined that the Respondent received correspondences from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland (MCRI) in December 2021 on behalf of the Complainant; and confirming that the Complainant held a Stamp 2 visa. She said that the representative (BA) from the MCRI provided the Respondent with a copy of the Complainant’s visa in March 2022, along with the Complainant’s bank details. She said the company also requested his home address.

She said that, in April 2022, payment was issued to the Complainant in the amount of three weeks’ wages - €1,326.92. The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing, enquired as to ‘What triggered the payment?’ Ms. Kennedy said there was a ‘new girl in accounts’ who then processed the payment.

The Adjudication Officer, at the hearing enquired as to whether any payment had been made to the Complainant, in respect of outstanding annual leave. Ms. Kennedy confirmed that there had not been any payment made to the Complainant in respect of annual leave.

CA-00048144-001 - I find that the payslip submitted affirms what the Respondent stated in her evidence, i.e. that the Complainant has been paid his wages in full for the weeks he worked, in the amount of €1326.92 gross, albeit several months late, and that the gap between that figure and the figure he received is taxes, and a matter for the Complainant to address with Revenue. This claim has been submitted under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and there are therefore no monies outstanding to the Complainant. I have no jurisdiction to impose a penalty on the company, under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as requested by the Complainant.   

CA-00048144-002 – I find that no monies in respect of Annual Leave have been paid to the Complainant and that the amount of €106.15 is outstanding to him, which represents 8% of hours worked. The Respondent appeared to be unaware of their obligations with respect to annual leave, which are set out in section 19(1) the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

CA-00048144-001: I find that this claim is not well founded. I find that no monies are outstanding in relation to wages.

CA-00048144-002: I find that this claim is well founded. I find that payment for untaken annual leave in the amount of €106.15 is outstanding and I direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €106.15 within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Payment of Wages; Annual Leave; Stamp 2 visa;