Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Charline  Nguyen

Eddie's Take Away Ltd

Representatives

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-00055986-001

08/04/2023

The complainant submits that she is owed monies.

The complainant gave evidence that she started work on 02/03/2023 and worked 3 weeks until 20/03/2023.  She had hoped to improve her English and after the first 2 weeks she realised the job was not the job for her and she was not comfortable doing the job and gave her notice on 18/03/2023.  The complainant said that after many requests she did not receive her money or her pay slips.  She said that she was sad with how things worked out as Mr Domocos was nice and helped her set up her PPS but she could not ignore that she had not been paid for hours worked.  She advised that when she resigned, she told the respondent that she suffered stress and that he enquired to ensure that people at work did not cause her stress and she confirmed they did not.  She said that she worked on March 16th from 5-11, 17th from 1-7, 18th from 4-11.30, 19th from 4-11 and 20th from 4-11 a total of 33.5 hours and her rate of pay was €11.30, and she was owed €378.55.  WhatsApp messages between Mr Domocos were provided regarding shifts worked.

There respondent denied the opportunity to no cross examine the complainant. 

The respondent submitted that they employed the complainant but did not know her intentions and when she approached them for a job she did not have a PPS and they assisted her even though it was not their responsibility.  After they approved her PPSN application, Mr Domocos submitted that the complainant advised them she was resigning and this was unfair and that he understood the responsibilities of an employers but that employees should understand their responsibilities also when resigning so quickly.   He submitted that she got paid for hours she worked with the respondent.

Mr Domocos gave evidence and said he thanked the WRC for giving him an opportunity to respond to the complaint.  He denied that the complainant had not received pay slips and referenced that the complainant had uploaded some pay slips.  He said she commenced on 03/03/2023 and her employment ended on 15/03/2023.  He denied that the complainant had worked 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th March and said that all the work she did she was paid for and that after she secured a PPS number she left and that this was unfair.  He confirmed that the complainant gave notice on 15/03/2023 and said that the roster was in a safe at the office.

Under cross examination he denied that he was wasting time and that he had nothing else to add.

The complainant commenced employment on 02/03/2023.  The complainant submits that she is owed monies for working 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th March.  The respondent denies that she worked those dates and submitted that the complainant stayed with them until her PPS was set up and then she left. 

Section (6) provides that where—

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.

For a breach of the Act to occur, the wages must be properly payable within the cognisable period.  I note that the cognisable period for this complaint is 09/10/2022 to 08/04/2023.  The complainant claims she was not paid monies properly payable for 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th March 2023 which is within the cognisable period, and the respondent denies she worked these days. 

In Sullivan v Department of Education PW 2/1997 (reported at [1998] E.L.R. 217) the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that,

“if an employee does not receive what is properly payable to him or her from the outset then this can amount to a deduction within the meaning of the 1991 Act”.

Having heard the evidence and submissions and having examined the WhatsApp messages between the parties regarding shifts that the complainant alleges she covered I am satisfied that the complainant worked the aforementioned dates and her evidence is credible that she worked a total of 33.5 hours.  I find, therefore, in favour of the complainant and find that her complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable to her during the cognisable period is €378.55.

I find in favour of the complainant and find that her complaint is well founded and that the monies properly payable to her during the cognisable period is €378.55.

Payment of wages