ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00046948
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sachin Kumar | Madhu Foods Limited, Guru Indian Cuisine |
Representatives | Aran Grealish B.L. instructed by Martin & Grove Solicitors LLP |
|
Complaints:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057891-001 | 25/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00057891-002 | 25/07/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00057891-003 | 25/07/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 01/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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 complaints.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Mr. Kumar was dismissed by letter dated February 21st, 2023. He was due to receive one week’spaymentinlieuofnotice.
He was issued with a final pay slip dated 26 February 2023 for the sum of €4038 gross (€3245.78 net) to include basic pay and outstanding holiday pay.
No payment was received on foot of this pay slips and the basic pay does not appear to include his weeks payment in lieu of notice.
The complainant gave evidence on affirmation. (The interpreter also made the requisite affirmation).
He confirmed his start date as April 19th, 2002. He outlined certain changes that were made to his conditions over what he had been promised before coming to work for the respondent.
In particular he said that his actual salary was €2500.00 per month. However, he confirmed that he received no payment of any kind for the last month of his employment or other monies due despite being sent the pay slip on February 26th, 2023.
He also confirmed in his evidence that he worked on all public holidays during his employment and received no compensatory payment or leave. Likewise, he did not receive the payment in lieu of notice. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. A letter was received the day before the hearing indicating that he was abroad and would return within two weeks.
No application was made for an adjournment and no supporting materials were included. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant gave credible evidence on affirmation, and I accept his evidence as reliable in respect of all the complaints.
There is some discrepancy in the wages on the pay slip and that given by him in evidence, but I accept the version given in his oral evidence.
I find that he is entitled to one month’s wages in the amount of €2,500.00.
He is entitled to sixteen days’ annual leave in the amount of €2000.00
He is also entitled to payment in respect of public holidays which I estimate to be five (all arising in the period except Christmas) totaling €625.00
I also find that he is entitled to one week’s pay in lieu of notice in the amount of €625.00 |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint CA-00057891-001 in relation to his last month’s wages is well founded and I award him one month’s wages in the amount of €2,500.00.
Complaint CA-00057891-002 is well founded and I award him €2000.00 in respect of annual leave and €625 in respect of public holiday entitlement.
Complaint CA-00057891-003 in relation to notice is well founded and I award him €625.00. |
Dated: 03/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Payment of Wages. |