Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Niamh  O'Brien

Innominato The Head Lice Experts

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Niamh O’Brien

The Head Lice Experts

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-00032303-001

18/11/2019

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

CA-00032303-002

18/11/2019

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and has submitted that the Respondent paid the Complainant a less amount due to the wrong working hours being put on the Complainant’s payslip (CA-00032303-001).

The Complainant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 and has submitted that she did not receive the appropriate payment in lieu of notice of termination of her employment (CA-00034303-002).

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent Company on the 18th June 2019. The Complainant was employed as a clinician and her gross pay was €10.00 per hour. The Complainant gave her notice of resignation on the 10th October 2019 and her last day of employment was the 7th November 2019.

The Complainant submitted that from beginning of her employment until August 2019, she was paid a lower amount due to the wrong hours being put on her payslips. The Complainant

did not realise this was an issue as she was not given any payslips until approximately six weeks after she had commenced this employment. The Complainant raised this issue with the Respondent and she was assured this matter would be resolved as soon as possible. The Complainant continued to raise this issue on numerous occasions both in person and in correspondence with the Respondent but with no successful outcome.

Another issue of concern for the Complainant was in relation to her details with the Revenue. The Complainant discovered that her details had not been updated since the 28th June 2019. The Complainant brought this matter to the attention of the Respondent. Ultimately, the Complainant’s details were updated but with the incorrect figures from the aforementioned payslips.

The Complainant submitted her contract provided she had to give one month’s written notice. Accordingly, the Complainant gave her notice of resignation on 10th October 2019 and gave her final date as the 7th November 2019. The Complainants contract provided that she would be paid in lieu if they did not require her to work this notice period. During this notice period, the Complainant was required to work on 11th October 2019 for 5 hours. The Complainant was not given any more work after that date and was only paid for those 5 hours worked. The Complainant was willing to work during her notice period but was only given one shift.

Ultimately, the Complainant, who was in her final year of college at the time of this employment decided to terminate her employment due to, inter alia, working conditions and the fact that her issues regarding pay were never properly addressed.

The Complainant qualified in June 2020 and took up full time employment in July 2020.

These Complaints were received by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 18th November 2019.

The Respondent had informed the Workplace Relations Commission on the 10th August 2020 that as a result of the Covid 19 outbreak the company had been dissolved.

The Respondent were informed by the Workplace Relations Commission on the 10th November 2020 that the aforesaid complaints would be heard remotely on the 4th December 2020.

Upon being informed of the webex invite details for the remote hearing of these matters, the Respondent informed the Workplace Relations Commission on the 2nd December 2020 that “without prejudice: Regrettably the Respondent Company is dissolved. I will therefore not be discussed (sic) this matter any further.” 

Accordingly, the Respondent did not attend the remote hearing of these complaints on the 4th December 2020.

In the particular circumstances of this case, the evidence of the Complainant is uncontroverted of the Complainant due to the non attendance of the Respondent.

In that regard, the Complainant outlined in the course of an email to the Respondent on the 26th February 2020 her calculations in relation to the amount of monies she was due and owing.

Firstly, the Complainant calculated she was owed €264.07 being the difference between what she was paid and what she should have been paid in reference to the wrong hours being put on her payslips.  Secondly, the Complainant calculated she was owed €170.00 in relation to breaks which she claimed was never permitted. Thirdly, the Complainant calculated she was owed €333.40 in relation to annual leave which she never availed off but was entitled to as her contract provided “on termination of her employment where you have taken less than your holiday entitlement as calculated, you will be entitled to be paid for those annual leave hours not taken. The adjustment will be paid by way of an additional payment.”  Fourthly, the Complainant calculated she was owed €300.00 in relation to payment for her notice period.

Accordingly, these complainants are well founded and upon consideration of the aforementioned evidence, I find that the Respondent should pay the Complainant the total amount of €1,067.47

I find that the Complaints (CA-00032303-001 and CA-00032303-002) made pursuant to Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, succeed  and direct that the Respondent pay the sum of €1,067.47                to the Complainant.

Payment of Wages