Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Petru Iulian  Plamada

Go Ahead Ireland

Representatives

  Self-represented

Olivia Lawlor

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-00053489-001

18/10/2022

The complainant gave his evidence under affirmation.  Cross examination was offered but not availed of.  There were no witnesses for the respondent.

The complainant submitted that he attended his workplace but was sent home for not wearing the correct uniform.  He submitted that the trousers he was issued with no longer fitted him. He noted that not all employees wore the regulation uniform.  He went home and did not go into work the following day.  He submitted that he was left short two days wages for the two days he was absent from his workplace.

In evidence the complainant stated that he arrived in the Depot and was approached by the Assistant Operations Manager.  He was informed that he was not wearing the regulation trousers (he was wearing a black tracksuit bottoms).  He was told to go home and change.

The complainant stated that later that day he sent the Assistant Operations Manager an email enquiring whether he was dismissed or not but received no response.  He did not attend work the following day.  On the morning of the third day, he went to his solicitor and thereafter returned to his workplace.

The respondent acknowledged that the complainant was sent home from his workplace and acknowledged that he was not paid two days wages.

The respondent offered to pay the complainant the two days wages together with subsistence allowances in the next payroll.  The respondent indicated that the complainant was rostered for 9.26 hours on the first day, and 10 .06 hours on the second day.  His rate of pay is €16.75.  the respondent submitted that he was also entitled to a subsistence payment of €10 per day.

At the start of the hearing, the respondent acknowledged that the complainant was sent home and offered to pay the complainant two days wages together with subsistence allowances in the next payroll.  The complainant insisted that he did not want to accept the offer as he had paid for a solicitor and there was pain and suffering on his part.  It was noted that under the Payment of Wages Act, the appropriate remedy available was the payment of the wages properly due to a complainant that had been withheld.  He continued insisting that he wanted to have a decision issued in his case.  The hearing proceeded.

The complainant was sent home for not wearing the regulation trousers.  He noted that he had put on weight and was now a size 44 rather than the size 42 that he was issued with.  He noted that he went home and later sent an email asking whether he was dismissed or not.  The complainant did not give any evidence as to how he came to that conclusion or that any issue like this was raised with him.  It appears that the complainant simply sent an unsolicited email as a result of being sent home to put on the regulation uniform trousers.

The complainant suggested that other employees did not always wear the regulation trousers.  This contention was not challenged by the respondent.  Arising from the evidence presented to me I am satisfied that the complainant was properly owed a day’s wages in relation to his first day’s absence.  Accordingly, I find that the complaint is well founded.

Having regard to the second day’s wages, I am not satisfied that the complainant has established that he was properly owed wages for a day where he took it upon himself not to show up for work.  The complainant did not provide evidence of any indication from the respondent that he was dismissed, and no evidence was provided that he was sent home for anything other than a change of clothes.

Having regard to the foregoing I am satisfied that the complainant is entitled to the wage for the first day of €156.96 

Having regard to the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complaint is well founded, and I direct the respondent to pay the complainant compensation in the amount of €156.96 less any lawful deductions.

Payment of Wages – well founded – wages properly owed - payment of compensation.