Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Christopher  Connolly

Millamo Limited t/a The Address Hotel (amended on consent at the hearing)

Representatives

  Self-Represented

 Terence O’Sullivan Solicitor

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-00049170-001

12/03/2022

The Complainant swore an oath at the outset of the hearing.

The HR Manager and Financial Controller appeared at the hearing for the Respondent, and both swore an oath.

The Complainant filed a complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 to the WRC which was received on 12 March 2022.

Documentation was relied upon by the Complainant and presented at the hearing. The Respondent was given an opportunity to review it in advance of any evidence being given on the documents.

The Complainant was given every opportunity within the allowed time to review the documentation on the day of the hearing. He confirmed he had received time sheets and pay slips under a Data Access Request to the Respondent prior to the hearing but had not studied it.

The parties were given an opportunity to cross examine each other.

The Complainant had two complaints; the first regarding hours he stated he worked but were not paid for and the second related to vouchers he received as rewards for his positive reviews on TripAdvisor.com but was unable to use.

The Complainant gave evidence that he commenced employment on 17 May 2021 and voluntarily resigned with a termination date of 19 October 2021.  

The Complainant gave evidence that he was owed “in the region of €900”  but was unable to give specific amounts or dates.

Under cross examination the Complainant accepted that he could not give the Respondent exact dates in which he claims he did not receive the correct wages. It further accepted the Respondent’s submission that payment was in order by stating; “I am happy with what the Respondent had to say and accept it.”

The Complainant gave evidence that he withdrew his complaint as regards the vouchers and stated the Respondent “ was right to do so” in response to not allowing him to take the “duvet days” when he resigned and cancelling the voucher booking.

The Respondent had the opportunity to clarify the Complainant’s queries regarding his roaster and payslip. It was put to him in cross examination that no monies were due to him, and he accepted this.

As regards the vouchers, the complaint was withdrawn by the Complainant under cross examination.

The produced various payslips and corresponding roasters which he said did not correspondent. During the course of the hearing when the roasters and payslips were interpreted for  were made as regards the hours he work  and the payments made. This was accepted in full by the Complainant. Every effort was made to ensure the Complainant was given a full opportunity to present this case during the hearing. It is noted that during cross examination he accepted what the Respondent was submitting that he was paid for all hours worked.

The Complainant also withdrew his complaint as regards the vouchers at the hearing.

Both withdrawals were confirmed on a number of occasions with the Complainant by the Adjudication Officer at the hearing.

 Therefore, I find the complaint is not well founded.

I find the complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages - Withdrawn