Complainant

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Apprentice Electrician

Electrical Contractor

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations Acts

CA-00048015-002

06/01/2022

The Worker commenced employment on 23rd June 2021. The Worker was a permanent, full-time employee, in receipt of a weekly payment of €733.00. The contract of employment was terminated on 6th January 2022.

On 6th January 2022, the Worker referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Employer failed to pay his wages on time and as per his contract of employment. In denying this allegation, the Employer stated that the difficulties in this regard arose by virtue of the a third party’s failure to submit timesheets.

In the absence of any objection by the Employer within the statutory timeframe, the matter proceeded to hearing. Said hearing was convened for, and finalised on, 19th September 2022. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either side during the hearing.

Both parties issued comprehensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon by way of oral argument during the hearing and opposed by other side. No issues as to my jurisdiction to her the dispute were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

The Worker submitted that at commencement of his employment he experienced ongoing issues with his pay. In particular, he submitted that from June to August 2021, his pay was either late or in the incorrect amount on an almost weekly basis. In late August 2021, the Worker was engaged with a new client and, for a time, payment was received in an orderly fashion.

On 14th December 2021, the Worker raised a query regarding the payment of accrued and unused annual leave by year end. By response, the Worker was informed that the same would be paid in the final pay run prior to the Christmas break. On 23rd December, being the assigned day for payment, the Worker received no payslip or payment of any description. As this placed the Worker in an extremely difficult position in advance of the Christmas break, he contacted a member of management of the Employer to enquire regarding the same. By response, the manager stated that the worker should “lose the attitude” and the Worker’s concerns were not addressed. The following day, the Worker received a call from another member of management who advised that issue arose as a result of a failure of the third party client to forward the relevant timesheets to be processed. On foot of the same, the Worker contacted the third party in this respect and following the same, the relevant timesheets were issued on 26th December 2021. Thereafter the Worker attempted to contact the Employer over the Christmas period, without success. Finally, on 6th January 2022, the Worker resigned his position as he could not continue to work for a company that would not pay on time or with regularity.

By response, the Employer denied they failed to pay the Worker in line with his contract of employment. They submitted that any issues raised by the Worker were answered within a short period of time. They accepted that an issue arose regarding the Worker’s payment on 23rd December, however they submitted that the same arose as a result of the third party client failing to submit the relevant time sheets. Whilst the same were submitted on 26th December, the office was then closed for the Christmas break. The Employer denied that the Worker was told to “lose the attitude” during a phone call in relation to this matter. Finally, the Employer submitted that the Worker resigned without raising any form of informal or formal grievance in respect of these matters.

The present dispute involves an allegation by the Worker that his former Employer failed to pay him on time and ignored his concerns thereafter. By response, the Employer stated that the failure in this regard arose due to an oversight on the part of a third party and the Worker failed to raise the matter through the relevant channels.

Having regard to the foregoing, it is common case that the Worker did not receive payment on the final pay run before Christmas. Such a failure on the part of the Employer naturally led to significant difficulties on the part of the Worker, given the time of year. In the matter of Cantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan [1999] I.R.L.R. 234, it was held that,

“…it is difficult to exaggerate the crucial importance of pay in any contract of employment. In simple terms the employee offers his skills and efforts in exchange for his pay: that is the understanding at the heart of the contractual arrangement between him and his employer.”

Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is apparent that issues regarding timely payment of wages can and will arise, particularly when the processing of the same relies on third party input. However, when such situations arise, it would be reasonable to expect the Employer to do all in their power to alleviate any difficulty an employee may experience on foot of such a failure. The simple fact remains that the Employee completed the work assigned to him in full expectation that he would receive timely payment. The Worker has stated that when he sought to raise these issues he was met with hostility from management of the Employer. Whilst the Employer has denied some of the comments attributed to them, no evidence has been presented of their efforts to alleviate the difficulties experienced by the Worker. At the relevant time, and during the hearing, the Employer simply stated that the issue arose due to failure on the party of a third party and the matter was effectively out of their control. Such a position falls short of what is expected from a reasonable employer in these circumstances

Having regard to the foregoing, I recommend in favour of the Worker. In circumstances whereby the employment relationship has ended, compensation is the most appropriate for of remedy. In this regard, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,000 in settlement of this dispute.

I recommend in favour of the Worker. In circumstances whereby the employment relationship has ended, compensation is the most appropriate for of remedy. In this regard, I recommend that the Employer pay the Worker the sum of €2,000 in settlement of this dispute.

Late payment, third party