Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Adam  Troy

Jason Moore Kitchens & Joinery Ltd

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 23 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2015

CA-00054897-001

06/02/2023

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The was no dispute as to the material facts of the case.

The complainant submitted that he was not paid according to the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) applying to the Construction Sector.

The respondent agreed that the employee was not paid in accordance with the SEO but submitted that he was under the impression at the time that the rates did not apply to his enterprise.  He submitted that he paid the employee the rate they had agreed between themselves.

The respondent submitted that the employee should have raised his concerns regarding the operation of the SEO with him before taking a complaint to the WRC.  The employer submitted that the worker was only entitled to the underpayment in respect of the six months preceding the submission of his complaint.

The complainant stated that he was not paid in accordance with the SEO of the Construction Sector.  He also stated that he had raised his rate of pay with his employer and sought a payrise.

The employer confirmed that he did not pay the worker in accordance with the SEO.  He also confirmed that although the employee raised the issue of his pay, he never linked it to the SEO rates.

Having regard to the foregoing, I find that the compliant is well founded. 

Under Section 41(6) the reference to the WRC is limited to six months.  Section 41(6) states as follows:

(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Section 41(8) states that

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

No request to extend the period under consideration was made. 

Arising from the foregoing, I require the employer to pay the complainant the sum of €3000 in compensation which I consider to be just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this matter, my decision is that the complaint is well founded and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €3000 which I consider to the just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances.

IR (amendment) Act, 2015 -  well founded - compensation