ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030304
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Philip Hanley | Pbr Restaurants Limited Fish Shack Cafe |
Representatives | Dr. Gerald Kean | Ms Lisa Conroy, Peninsula Group Limited |
Complaint(s):
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-00040607-001 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-002 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-003 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-004 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-005 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-006 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-007 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-008 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-009 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-010 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-011 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-012 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-013 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-014 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-015 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-016 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-017 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-018 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-019 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-020 | 23/10/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00040607-021 | 23/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
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.
Background:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from 18th January 2010 until 27th August 2020. This complaint was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 23rd October 2020.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was placed on lay-off without pay and contends that there was no contractual or legal basis for the non-payment of wages throughout this period. The Complainant requested an extension of time from 6 months to 12 months and contends there was a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the complaint. The reason provided was that he was engaged in an internal redundancy consultation and appeals process that only concluded on 15th October 2020. There are 21 complaints in total, all are submitted under s.6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, these are as follows:
|
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent provided no submission to the hearing. The Respondent states that they were following all Government guidelines and had no choice but to lay off the vast majority of the staff. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Payment of Wages Act, 1991 at Section 6 (4) reads as follows: (4) A rights commissioner shall not entertain a complaint under this section unless it is presented to him within the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates or (in a case where the rights commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the presentation of the complaint within the period aforesaid) such further period not exceeding 6 months as the rights commissioner considers reasonable. The complaint was received on 23rd October 2020, the cognisable period therefore is 23rd April to 22nd October 2020. The Complainant contends that he was prevented from presenting the complaint due to having an internal redundancy consultation and appeals process ongoing and this process concluded on 15th October 2020. I do not agree with the complainant, he could have submitted this complaint within the specified time limit, there are no exceptional circumstances. The following complaints are therefore ruled as being out of time:
The Complainant was never issued a statement of the particulars of his employment. During the pandemic many companies, including the respondent had no choice but to cease trading. The Respondent could only continue to offer take away meals at some of its premises. The vast majority of the workforce were placed on lay off. In a recent Labour Court decision – Romana Vancekova v Penneys, PWD 2250 the Court found that while the Payment of Wages Act was breached but due to the wider circumstances prevailing during the pandemic, an award of no compensation was reasonable. In the instant case I find that there was a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. Section 6(2) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 reads as follows: (2) Where a rights commissioner decides, as respects a complaint under this section in relation to a deduction made by an employer from the wages of an employee or the receipt from an employee by an employer of a payment , that the complaint is well-founded in regard to the whole or a part of a deduction or payment, the commissioner shall order the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as he thinks reasonable in the circumstances not exceeding - …. In considering this complaint I cannot overlook the fact that we were in the midst of a global pandemic and many hundreds of thousands of employees throughout Ireland were on lay off. I believe that an award of no compensation is the correct decision to make. |
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.
In the instant case I find that there was a breach of the Payment of Wages Act. In considering this complaint I cannot overlook the fact that we were in the midst of a global pandemic and many hundreds of thousands of employees throughout Ireland were on lay off. I believe that an award of no compensation is the correct decision to make. |
Dated: 09-01-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Key Words:
|