ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00035996

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Olga Shiyanova	Eilis Quinlan & Co. Limited

Representatives

Self - Represented

David O'Reilly of O'Reilly Curran & Associates

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-00047196-001	16/11/2021

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/08/2022

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 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.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.

No objections to the public nature of the Hearing or Findings were raised.

The required Affirmation / Oath was administered to all witnesses. The legal perils of committing Perjury were explained to all parties.

Full cross examination of Witnesses was allowed and availed of.

Regrettably the preparation of the Adjudication decision was delayed due to a Covid situation.

Background:

The issue in contention concerned a payment claimed by the Complainant, a book keeper, against a firm of Accountants. It concerned a personal taxation issue arising from the operation of the TWSS employment support scheme during Covid.

The employment began on the 27th September 2021 and ended on the 14th October 2021.

The rate of pay was stated to be €673 per standard 39 hour week.

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant alleged that she was due a sum of approximately € 1,885.83 arising from a personal PAYE/Revenue refund. The dispute arose over the mechanism that the Employer used to refund this money.

It was accepted at the Hearing that the liability to the Complainant from the Respondent had been discharged and no monies were now owing.

However, the Complainant felt that the Respondent had not treated her with proper dignity.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The dispute arose over the correct mechanism to discharge the liability to the Complainant. The monies had been paid in November 2021. Accordingly, no case under the Payment of Wages Act now existed. Documentary evidence, Bank Statements etc were submitted in evidence.

3: Findings and Conclusions:

All liabilities between the Complainant and the Respondent were discharged. The Complainant agreed that no monies were now due but felt that the Respondent had not treated her with dignity.

As no monies are now owing there cannot be a case under Sections 5 or 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The case has, accordingly ,to be deemed Not Well Founded and must fail

4: Decision:

CA: 00047196-001

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

The complaint, following full consideration of all Oral Evidence and Written materials submitted , is deemed to be Not Well Founded and fails.

Dated: 4th January 2023.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Key Words:

Payment of Wages Act,1991