ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00040999

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Aslihan Yilmaz	Dx Compliance

Representatives

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-00052244-001	15/08/2022

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/03/2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

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.

This matter was heard 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.

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, and that 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.

Background:

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent on 2 November 2020, as a Digital Marketing Executive. Her employment ended on 15 August 2022. She worked 37.5 hours per week.

The complainant submitted a complaint form to the WRC, received 15 August 2022, under the Payment of Wages Act, 1991. The complainant put forward that she was owed payment of wages and notice.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant gave evidence under Oath. The complainant stated that she had first started in the respondent company in 2019 as an intern. Ten months later she was asked to work with the company on a part-time basis. The complainant stated that she did not receive payslips or her pay. She stated she was owed a considerable amount of money.

The complainant stated that she had received the monies she believed owed to her the day before the hearing.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Mr Simon Dix, the respondent company’s CEO, gave evidence on Affirmation at the hearing. He stated that he had tried to contact the complainant before the hearing but was unable to do so. He stated that he had authorised the payment of the monies owed to the complainant.

Findings and Conclusions:

The amount the complainant believed was owed to her has been paid to her, therefore the complaint is moot. It is regrettable the respondent did not sort this matter out far sooner.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

The complaint is not well founded.

Dated: 9th May 2023

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words:

Outstanding payment, wages.