Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  O'Neill

Maxnrich Limited  t/a MHC Contracting

Representatives

  N/A

 N/A

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-00057218-001

19/06/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00057218-002

19/06/2023

The Complainant worked as a “Lead Hand Carpenter” for the Respondent from April 2022 until 31 March 2023. The Complainant earned approximately €924.00 gross per week, working an average of 38.5 hours per week.  He outlined that he was paid one week in arrears. He submitted that he did not receive his final two weeks of wages. He outlined that he tried to resolve the matter with the Respondent who did not engage in any meaningful way. His submitted his Complaint Form to the WRC on 19 June 2023.

The Complainant outlined his two complaints, brought under s.6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991, as amended, as follows:

•            CA00057218-001 – The Complainant is seeking his wages for the week ending 26 March 2023. The Complainant outlined that he worked 39.15 hours that week and is seeking €720.49 net; and

•            CA00057218-002 – The Complainant is seeking his wages for the week ending 2 April 2023. The Complainant outlined that he worked 38.5 hours that week and is seeking €712.47 net.

The Complainant worked as a “Lead Hand Carpenter”, for the Respondent. In this role, the Complainant supervised an average of seven to eight carpenters at a time. During his period of employment with the Respondent, he worked on a site in Dublin city centre and Ballymun and at two small private residences.

The Complainant submitted that he was an employee however, he never received a contract of employment and everything had been agreed over the phone. The Complainant outlined that he was not self-employed and that he does not have a company nor does he trade in his own name. The Complainant submitted that all of the carpenters which he supervised were self-employed, while the apprentice carpenters were employees. The Complainant submitted that he paid tax through PAYE. The Complainant outlined that he received paid annual leave and that he had to seek approval from the Company Contract Manager to take that annual leave. The Complainant outlined that he also received pay for bank holidays. The Complainant outlined that the Company Contract Manager allocated him work and told him which sites to go to and what he had to do. The Complainant confirmed that he could not send another person in his place to carry out his role.

The Complainant outlined that on 31 March 2023, he and all of the carpenters were told to bring their tools home. The following Monday, 3 April 2023, he received a phone call from the Company Contract Manager, informing him not to return as the Respondent was shutting down. The Complainant outlined that prior to this, there had been some talk among his colleagues that the Respondent had lost a substantial sum of money on a previous job which it could not recoup and that the Responded “folded” as a result.  

The Complainant outlined that he had received his payslips by email but that he no longer had access to them. The Complainant further outlined that these payslips confirmed the hours that he had worked. The Complainant outlined that he would check for these payslips again and provide them to the Adjudication Officer. The Complainant outlined that his Revenue Online Services account shows his payment details. He outlined that it incorrectly shows that he was paid €939.60 gross on 30 March 2023 and €924 gross on 6 April 2023. The Complainant outlined that he never received these payments. The Complainant outlined that he would provide the Adjudication Officer with a copy of his relevant Revenue Online Services statement and a copy of his bank statement.

The Complainant outlined that once he realised that he had not received his pay for those two weeks, he called the Company Contract Manager around 6 or 7 April 2023, who referred him to Mark, the Owner. The Complainant called the Owner twice on 7 April 2023 and once again on 11 April 2023. The Complainant also sent the Owner a text message.  The Owner told him that he would look into it and get back to him. The Owner then told him to speak to Santos, the Payroll Administrator in the office. The Complainant called the Payroll Administrator three times on 11 April 2023 and once again on 12 April 2023, however his calls went unanswered. The Complainant also sent the Payroll Administrator a text message.  The Complainant outlined that he would provide the Adjudication Officer with a copy of these text messages.

The Respondent did not attend the Hearing as scheduled.

On 15 August 2023, the WRC wrote to the Respondent with information concerning the date, time and venue of the Hearing. The letter also set out the procedure regarding postponement requests.

On 10 October 2023, the WRC called the Respondent to obtain an email address for the issuance of the link for the remote Hearing. The Respondent made it clear that it would not provide an email address and that it would not attend the Hearing.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the Hearing and had sufficient opportunity to attend.

The Law:

The Payment of Wages Act 1991 as amended (the “PWA”) regulates deductions to an employee’s wages and prohibits unlawful deductions.

Under the PWA, “wages” are defined as:

"any sums payable to the employee by the employer in connection with his employment, including—

(a) any fee, bonus or commission, or any holiday, sick or maternity pay, or any other emolument, referable to his employment, whether payable under his contract of employment or otherwise, and

(b) any sum payable to the employee upon the termination by the employer of his contract of employment without his having given to the employee the appropriate prior notice of the termination, being a sum paid in lieu of the giving of such notice: […]”.

Section 5 of the PWA deals with the regulation of certain deductions made by employers.

Section 5(6)(b) of the PWA states that failure to pay amounts due on the occasion when due “…shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion.”

Section 6 of the PWA outlines the directions which an adjudication officer can make, where a complaint is wholly or partly well founded.

Findings and Conclusion:

The Complainant submitted that he was employed by the Respondent from April 2022 until 31 March 2023. He further submitted that the Respondent failed to pay him his final two weeks’ wages. As the Respondent did not attend and provided no written evidence, my investigation is based on the Complainant’s uncontested written and oral submissions and evidence.

During the Hearing, I noted that the Complainant had provided no documentation whatsoever in support of his complaints. The Complainant stated that he would provide the following documents by no later than 19 October 2023:

- A copy of his relevant Revenue Online Service statement;

- A copy of his relevant bank statement;

- A screenshot of his message(s) to Santos, dated end March / early April 2023;

- A screenshot of his message(s) to Mark, dated end March / early April 2023; and

- A copy of his payslips regarding the relevant period.

When these documents were not received, the WRC emailed the Complainant on 25 October 2023, requesting these documents by 31 October 2023. It was explained to the Complainant that if he did not provide the documents, the Adjudication Officer would proceed to issue her decision without sight of the same. The Complainant never responded.

In the circumstances, I find that the Complainant has failed to substantiate his complaints and so I find that these complaints are not well founded.

CA-00057218-001: Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded.

CA-00057218-002: Complaint under the Payment of Wages Act 1991:

For the reasons outlined above, this complaint is not well founded.

Payment of Wages.