ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037321
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Security Guard | Security Company |
Representatives | The claimant represented himself | The respondent represented himself |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00048499-001 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 15 of the European Communities (Organisation of Working Time) (Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006 - S.I. No. 507 of 2012 | CA-00048499-002 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00048499-003 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00048499-004 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00048499-005 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00048499-006 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00048499-007 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00048499-008 | 02/02/2022 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00048499-009 | 02/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/12/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Procedure:
The claimant at the outset stated he was pursuing 2 complaints – one related to non-payment of wages for hours worked and the second complaint related to holiday money outstanding
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and/or Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant was employed as a security guard by the respondent from mid Nov to the 24thDec. 2021. The complainant stated he started on the 14th.Nov. 2221 while the respondent asserted he commenced on the 17th.November 2021.He submitted that the respondent assured him that he would be paid for all hours worked and his pro rata holiday entitlement but the respondent had failed to honour this commitment. The respondent acknowledged that there may be 1 or 2 issues outstanding with the complainant but asserted that he did not think the company were in breach of any regulations. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
According to the claimant ,he was employed from the 14th.Nov. 2021- 24th.Dec. as a security guard for a car park. He initially was working a 40-hour weeks but ended up working up to 10 hours a day while only being paid for a 37.5 hour week. He said he submitted time sheets to the respondent and was assured he would be paid for all hours worked. The claimant said he had worked in the security industry for a long time and knew how the system worked. He estimated that he was owed €400-€500 in unpaid wages and 20 hours holiday pay. He was never given a contract of employment, but he understood his rate of pay was €12.05 per hour. The complainant said he had made numerous efforts to resolve the matter with the respondent but the complaints remained unresolved. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent asserted the claimant worked from the 17th.Nov. 2021 to the 24th.Dec. 2021.He acknowledged there were 1 or 2 matters outstanding with the claimant. He stated there had been a misinterpretation on the claimant’s part with respect to his entitlements. He stated that the claimant was recruited to work 37.5 hours per week – that this was what the car park company had engaged the respondent to do. The respondent asserted that other people within the centre had asked the complainant to do other hours. When he was approached by the complainant, he told him to put his complaint in writing. The respondent was asking his accountant to review the matter. He asserted that this was casual work in the run up to Christmas and he did not believe the company broke any regulations. The respondent asserted that the claimant through his goodwill had helped other businesses out in the centre and this was how he accumulated the additional hours. He asserted that he told the claimant that he had no authorisation to pay additional hours. He said the contract was clear and referenced 40 hours. The respondent said the claimant was on €11.65 per hour. He thought he had sent the claimant a contract. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective position of the parties. I found the claimants evidence to be persuasive and compelling. The respondent was evasive on the matter of a contract of employment and produced no wage slips or working time records. While he referenced some kind of review, he offered no explanation for the delay in responding to the complaints. In all of the circumstances , I find the claimant’s evidence to be more credible on the balance of probabilities and consequently I am upholding the complaints. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I require the respondent to pay the claimant €500.00 for breaching the Act with respect to unpaid wages.
Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under that Act.
I require the respondent to pay the claimant €133 for outstanding holiday pay. I further require the respondent to pay the claimant €100 compensation for this breach of the Act.
Dated: 02/02/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea
Key Words:
|