ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030349
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Abhijeet Khopade | BioObservation Systems Limited |
Representatives | Self-represented | Self-represented |
Complaint:
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-00040560-001 | 23/10/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Procedure:
On the 23rd October 2020, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. The complaint was scheduled for adjudication on the 4th June 2021, and this was held remotely.
The complainant, Abhijeet Khopade, attended the hearing. Ian Lucey, director attended for the respondent. The hearing was held remotely per section 31 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020. This provides that a hearing may be held by means of ‘electronic communications technology’ which expressly includes ‘two-way audio-visual and audio communication’.
Mr Lucey opted to turn his camera off during this hearing and had previously indicated a concern that the hearing could be recorded. I said that recording of the hearing was not permitted. Given the breadth of the definition of ‘electronic communications technology’ in section 31, there is no issue with the hearing proceeding with a party turning off or unable to access video.
This is a complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act. There was no serious and direct conflict of evidence requiring the administering of the oath or affirmation. There was no dispute of fact as to the payments made. The dispute was not one of fact or evidence, but one of legal submission: whether the monies paid were for wages due in the cognisable period.
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant outlined that he was owed €19,713.45 for unpaid wages and that there were historical arrears of wages. He had received assurances that the monies would be paid but there were only intermittent payments. He was not paid over several months. His gross salary was €66,000 per year. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent outlined that the complainant had harassed the respondent and it was initiating proceedings in the High Court against the complainant for dereliction of duty. It had reported matters to the Gardai. The respondent had lost grants because of the complainant. It said that it had paid the complainant the amounts due in 2019 and 2020. |
Findings and Conclusions:
This complaint is made pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act and relates to wages due to a senior technology manager. The respondent strongly disputes that the wages were due. What is not in dispute that the complainant’s gross yearly wage was €66,000 per year, which consisted of €5,500 per month gross or €3,467 per month net. It was not disputed that the following payments were made to the complainant in late 2019 and 2020: €4,000 in December 2019, €10,000 in April 2020, €6,000 in May 2020, €10,000 in July 2020 and €3,000 in September 2020. It was not in dispute that the complainant was not paid anything in October – November 2019, January to March 2020, June, August and October 2020. It was not in dispute that the complainant’s employment ended on the 15th October 2020. The cognisable period for this claim is 24th April to the 23rd October 2020. The complainant asserts that the contravention is €19,713.45, albeit that he was not paid other monies due to him. It is striking that the monies paid to the complainant were done so intermittently, with months where the complainant was not paid. The complainant was owed significant amounts but only paid intermittently. I find as fact that the intermittent payments made to the complainant related to the historical monies owed to the complainant. They are discounted against the monies already owed to the complainant, and do not meet the wages accruing within the cognisable period. There is no pay slip or other document to suggest otherwise. There were significant outstanding wages due to the complainant and ad hoc and unattributed payments made to him. As is standard practice in civil law, the complainant is entitled to set these payments off against the historical monies owed to him. This is in line with the ‘further protection’ provided by the Payment of Wages Act, as set out in the Long Title of the Act. The complainant has restricted his claim to €19,713.45, even though he is owed a greater amount of money. I find as fact that the complainant is entitled to recover this amount as wages due to him within the cognisable period. I, therefore, order that the respondent pay to the complainant compensation of €19,713.45. |
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.
CA-00040560-001 I decide that the complaint pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act is well-founded and I order that the respondent pay compensation to the complainant of €19,713.45. |
Dated: 11-01-2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act |