ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00039489
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shauna Gartland | Concentrix |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaint:
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-00051158-001 | 14/06/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 11/01/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The parties were advised by the WRC that following the delivery of a judgement of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer on 06/04/2021 that hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission are now held in public. That may result in decisions no longer being anonymised.
The hearing for this case was scheduled for 11/01/23. The respondent, its representatives and a witness attended. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant.
I am satisfied that the complainant was issued with a letter by e mail on 7/12/2022 advising her of the date and time of the hearing. In order to exercise a significant amount of caution I allowed a period of time to elapse before bringing the hearing to a close and there was no further communication received from or on behalf of the complainant.
Background:
The complainant was employed as a customer service advisor from 10/2/20 until she resigned on 6/5/22. In her final pay the complainant was not paid for days that she taken as sick leave as she had exceeded her entitlements. As these days were taken in the month prior to her resignation she submitted that she was not aware of these deductions. The respondent provided evidence of notification to the complainant and also explained that days taken after their salary cut off day are then deducted in the following month. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant had submitted a complaint to the WRC on 14/6/2022 seeking adjudication by the WRC under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue this complaint and/or give evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent’s representatives and a witnesses attended the hearing on behalf of the respondent. They were prepared to give evidence in defence of the complaint on behalf of the respondent and in accordance with the written submission and accompanying documentation submitted on its behalf. |
Findings and Conclusions:
As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing to pursue the complaint and/or give evidence in relation to this complaint I conclude that this complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
I am satisfied that the complainant was properly notified of the hearing arrangements. I find that her non-attendance at the hearing, without any notification, to pursue this complaint to be unreasonable. In the absence of any evidence proffered by or on behalf of the complaint I find this complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 is not well-founded. |
Dated: 15-02-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Payment of wages. Non attendance |