ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00043621
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Paul McSteen | Vanspeed |
Representatives |
| Ellen Walsh Peninsula |
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-00054549-002 | 18/01/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00054672-001 | 24/01/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael MacNamee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
I conducted a remote hearing in accordance with the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and Statutory Instrument 359/2020 which designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
The title of the Respondent was amended by consent to “Secure Courier Services Limited trading as Vanspeed” The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Driver from the 23rd of June 2022 until the 12th of December 2022. His weekly gross pay was €752.75 and net pay was €605.61. He was dismissed on the 12th of December 2022. His claims related to alleged unlawful deduction from his wages in respect of which he sought compensation pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant initially contended that he had not received his full entitlements on the termination of his employment. However, in the process of considering the documentation provided by the Respondent the Complainant very fairly accepted that no unlawful deductions had in fact been made from his remuneration and he accepted that he had received all his entitlements. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent denied that any unlawful deductions had been made and relied on the payslip for March 2023 which was provided to the Complainant in support of this contention. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In the light of the Complainant’s concession made in the course of the hearing to the effect that no unlawful deductions from his pay had been made, and from my own consideration of the documentation provided and the submissions made on foot thereof, I am satisfied that the claim is not well-founded and I so find. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint/dispute in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
The Complaint pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well-founded.
CA-00054549-002 - The Complaint pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well-founded.
CA-00054672-001 - The Complaint pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is not well-founded.
|
Dated: 13th November 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael MacNamee
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act 1991 |